CULTIVATING GRASSROOTS CONSERVATISM

Sexual Orientation is Flexible, Right?

2006-01-28T16:35:00.000-08:00

A satire, written to make you think. Every argument used has already been used extensively by those trying to change traditional marriage.
Posted from Alain's Newsletter, January 28, 2006
Conservative - Christian - Politically Active

Marriage – I want to marry three men, six women, four children (ages ranging from seven to ten), two dogs and a mule. And I want insurance and benefits for all of them. You do not like it, hate crime!!! Go to jail, get fined.

Hey everyone, this is my coming out notice. I have decided to CHANGE MY GENDER! We all know from the many great organizations out there that our gender is not fixed! It is FLUID like our constitution. NOW, HRC, ACLU, Planned Parenthood, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and so many more…

Hoorah for me! I am no longer to be considered a monogamous heterosexual male. From this point on, I am to be recognized as a Para-sexual. This is how I perceive my sexual orientation. You will love me and must accept me for whom I truly see myself to be. What, you never heard of a Para-sexual? No, I am not homosexual. No, I am not BI-sexual. Quit trying to limit my freedoms! I want to have a loving, multidirectional, multifaceted marital relationship with the ones I choose to love.

These are:

Male: Steve, Jack and John
Female: Judy, Jane, Elizabeth, Sally, Erica and Hillary
Children: Peter (male age 7), Jonathon (male age 9), Samantha (female age 10) and Jill (female age 9)
Canis familiaris: Spot (male age 3, Doberman) and Fife (female age 1 ½, french poodle)
Mule: Pedro (age 7)

We are planning a big happy wedding ceremony; all my best friends will be invited. Bill, Hillary, Ted, Barbara B. You know the crowd. (Great people. Oh that Ted is a kicker at parties when he starts getting juiced up!)

We deserve to have a happy legal marriage and all the benefits that come with it, such as: We deserve full medical and dental insurance, as well as other normal benefits, from our employers for our entire family. Hospitals must allow me to make decisions and visitations for all my family. We must be allowed jointly to adopt new children, pets and livestock. We must be allowed public housing on universities. My entire family must be considered surviving partners if one of us doesn’t have a will and dies. We deserve Tax Benifits, Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities. The right to create a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members. We demand all school children be taught, from preschool through college graduation, that we are a normal loving family. They must be forcibly taught that anyone who disagrees with our family’s lifestyles are terrible, hurtful, hateful bigots who should be locked away from decent people.

We deserve to be protected from bullying and name-calling. We demand that we have equal representation for the Para-sexual on all aspects television, radio, movie and print. This means at least five prime time sitcoms, three to five major motion pictures per season, and daily mention in the news media.

If American Idol does not find one of our very talented Para-sexual's to be THE American Idol, they must be thoroughly chastised in the press, and maybe sued by our great friends over at the ACLU. Para-sexualism must become a protected lifestyle, this is a civil rights issue.

We must not be discriminated against in any way. Laws must be passed protecting us from anyone who disagrees with us. Our liberty is at stake! Our family unit is larger than most, so we will fall well below the government described poverty line. Due to this, we deserve (and demand) equal access to child care, Medicare, welfare, unemployment, food stamps and any other wonderful social program we find out there that will give us what we deserve: free money. Your churches must also accept us. We will not allow intolerance from the pulpit. Any church that does not immediately and wholeheartedly accept us into their congregation will have their leaders arrested for hate crimes against us.

We do not care that God says what we are doing is SIN… we love one another. Is not God all about LOVE??? You best be LOVING us or we will get the government to make you, religious God fearing bigots! Your Church leaders better step up and get ready for some BIG weddings. When we come down the aisle, it is a true parade! So, now I am out of the closet. Are you loving me? Are you respecting me? No? [Screams: Hey ACLU, we got another one we can sue! Send in the litigators and make sure our bank account can handle another couple hundred grand from this bigoted reader!]

Permission is granted to republish this article.

What Do You Think?

2006-01-15T09:07:00.000-08:00

By Jose Ochoa
Posted by Angelic_Faces

Religion and politics don’t mix? Separation of Church and State? Evangelism and politics? Can someone be a politician and evangelist at the same time? Can one be politically active and a born again Christian? Enquiring minds want to know.

Today, we have a mythology that has been penetrated in our society and even in our church that the church should stay away from political matters. I beg to differ. Just recently, at the Judge Samuel Alito Senate confirmation hearings, a case was brought up when an elementary school student was given an assignment by his teacher during Thanksgiving: ‘To draw something that you are thankful for.’

This young boy decided to draw a picture of Jesus Christ. The high school teacher decided to put all of the students pictures up in the hallway of the school, except for one. Guess who’s? Not only was this student’s religious freedoms obstructed, but his evangelistic opportunity was obstructed as well. This case went one step below the Supreme Court when Judge Alito decided to give the boy back his freedom of religious expression, which is protected by the first amendment! (Free exercise clause).

Yes, politics does affect religion and religion does affect politics. Because of my religious beliefs I am pro-life, pro-Jesus and pro-Bible. Because of my religious beliefs I vote for those who will uphold biblical principles. What I am saying is that God has many callings: to teach, to serve and to lead/govern, etc. (see, Romans 12:4-8).

Then why have we Christians and the church allowed secular humanists to take over our country? Are not Christians called to lead? I believe the proclamation of the Gospel is at stake? If we continue to nominate and elect liberal anti-church, anti-life, anti-truth people to our courts and governing branches, let’s see how fast we lose our religious freedoms.

But then again, maybe that would be a good thing because under persecution the church seems to thrive ...and the Gospel proclaimed.

Force Multipliers

2006-01-02T18:12:00.000-08:00

FOUND THIS ON THE BLOGS FOR BUSH WEBSITE ... VERY GOOD!

By Mark Noonan at 07:10 PM

Wikipedia: force multiplier-a military term referring to a factor that dramatically increases (hence multiplies) the combat-effectiveness of a given military force.

In Iraq an IED explodes,
An American soldier dies,
But that blast will grow as the media blow
It up before our eyes.

And trumpet to the watching world,
These fifth column falsifiers,
Like sheep they bleat we face defeat,
Our foe’s force multipliers.

Osama and his minions know,
In combat they can’t beat us;
So they hope and pray will come a day,
Our own media will defeat us.

Ignoring all the good we’ve done,
Liberals focus on the gore,
On losses mounting and body counting,
To prove we’ve lost this war.

They disgraced us once in Vietnam,
So now these leftists feel,
That again they’ll win with media spin,
And make America kneel.

But defeatists aren’t the only ones,
Learned lessons from the past;
Back then we swore we’d lose no more,
This time we’re standing fast.

The Internet’s exposed them,
As elitist media liars;
They stand unclothed and widely loathed,
Our foe’s force multipliers.

Some day when all our troops return,
With Iraq on freedom’s path,
The liberal elite who sought defeat,
May face some Righteous wrath.

Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66

The Intrisnsic Evil of Evolutionary Humanism

2006-01-02T17:25:00.000-08:00

By Linda Kimball

01-02-2006

In 1920, Winston Churchill spoke of a group of Enlightenment conspirators who had produced a system of morals and philosophy “as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible.” He observed that this malignant worldview “has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19 th century. This worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality has been steadily growing.” (Zionism versus Bolshevism)

This malevolent system of warped morals and anti-human philosophy entered into the world during the Enlightenment, where it seems as if another Garden of Eden seduction occurred. It appears as though certain Enlightenment thinkers—Darwin, Marx, Hegel, Saint-Simon and Rousseau among others, ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and each man received certain ideas that when combined with the others, produced a malignancy filled system of philosophy comparable to a grimoire of goetia (black magic) which, like Sauron’s One Ring, holds out for the bearer, a seductive illusion of power, wealth, and glory. The key to the power, according to the grimoire, is through the reversal of human norms, natural law, and the social institutions so necessary for the continuance of mankind. In his book, The Everlasting Man, G. K. Chesterton described the reversal process as the ‘theology of demons’ and said it is sadistically anti-human and anti-childhood. It is intrinsically evil.

In its’ guise as Communism, it unleashed a sadistic anti-human holocaust of planetary dimensions. From Hitler’s ovens to the killing fields of Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedung, Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il, and Fidel Castro there runs interconnecting rivers of human blood. One hundred million lives were consumed in the demonic quest for the creation of a New Man.

Even as rivers of blood still flowed from the earthly Hells created by Communists, communism itself began to shape-shift into something innocuous seeming in order that it could slither into and infect Christendom and the very fortress of Christianity, the United States. It disguised itself as progressivism, liberalism, secular humanism, and then later as environmentalism, feminism and a plethora of other social justice causes.

Soon, subversive stealth campaigns were launched. One was for the purpose of perverting our language and to insert the word ‘social’ into every conceivable area. This was in order to plant the thought that ‘social’ infuses everything with a positive content.

Another was for the purpose of instilling a sense of guilt within Americans. Americans found themselves being frequently reminded of both their individual failures and of the evil perpetrated by their culture and nation. A constantly expanding range of ‘victims’ who had been ‘unfairly’ treated and thus deserving of ‘special’ treatment were paraded before Americans to ensure that the conscience of Americans remained troubled.

Phony civil rights and sexual liberation movements which were social justice (communism) agendas in disguise were launched. They served two purposes: they bulldozed our Rule of Law and individual rights aside in order that these could be supplanted with ‘group rights,’ and they worked as dynamite upon human norms and social institutions. They were also insidiously disguised attacks upon childhood and childhood innocence.

Marching in unison with the other campaigns was one whose purpose was the perversion of transcendent natural law and more specifically, the all-important ‘first principle’ articulated in our Declaration of Independence: the inalienable right to life. By the use of what J. Budziszewski (What We Can’t Not Know) termed ‘black magic spells of imposture and unraveling’ (a reversal process); shock troops of evil perverted the foundational principles of right and wrong. Because the new morals they created had an air of plausibility, Americans accepted them. Thus they’ve successfully supplanted the sanctity of life principle with an ever expanding range of ‘new morals’ such as the ‘sanctity of choice’ (who wants a woman to die while giving birth?) and the ‘sanctity of the environment’ (who doesn’t want clean air and water?)

Using the same process of reversal, they began to supplant human norms (traditional marriage for instance) and man’s created condition (fixed gender as either male or female) with perverted ‘new morals’ based in notions of sexual orientation, consent, choice, and privacy. These new morals, like the civil rights and sexual liberation movements, are also disguised attacks upon children and childhood innocence.

The infiltration and infestation was a success. The minds of Western Europeans and Americans had become sufficiently darkened and disordered. Mankind had been successfully conditioned to accept that his new place in the scheme of life was no longer transcendent to the creation as taught by Christianity, but below and in submission to it.

Mankind would henceforth be found guilty of existing, and through his existence, be found guilty of causing hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, global warming, and other natural phenomenon. The intrinsically evil worldview had finally stepped out of the shadows and revealed an appalling goggle-eyed face of neo-paganism.

The stage had been set for the next phase of their plan to redeem the world from the evil of humankind. The campaigns to debase humanity, to destroy social and human norms, and to eliminate the human plague organisms began apace.

Humans As Nonpersons and Plague Species

“Saying homo sapiens are a ‘plague species,’ the London Zoo opened a new exhibit featuring--eight humans. We have set up this exhibit to highlight the spread of man as a plague species and to communicate the importance of man’s place in the planet’s ecosystem.” (Human Beings: Plague Species; WorldNet Daily, 2005)

“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.” (Earth First! Journal editor John Daily)

“To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.” (Yale professor Lamont Cole)

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States.” (Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund)

“Until such time as homo sapiens decide to rejoin nature, (we) can only hope for the right virus to come along.” (David Graber, research biologist with the National Park Service)

“Nonpersons or potential persons cannot be wronged…because death does not deprive them of something they value.” (John Harris, Sir David Alliance professor of bioethics, University of Manchester, England)
On the Elimination of Human Weeds and Other Schemes

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fill the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention…the real enemy…is humanity itself.” (The First Global Revolution, published by the Club of Rome)

Note: The Club of Rome bills itself as a global think tank. It’s comprised of scientists, economists, businessmen, international high civil servants, university presidents, members of parliament, heads of state, and former heads of state from all five continents. They describe themselves as people “who believe that the future of humankind is not determined once and for all.” This is code for evolutionary humanism.

“In Guyana, within 2 years, it (DDT) had almost eliminated malaria…my chief quarrel with DDT…is that it has greatly added to the population problem.” (Alexander King, former president of the Club of Rome)

Note: In the 60’s, a group of depopulation environmentalists conspired to have DDT banned from being used to control mosquitoes and malaria. The subsequent banning of DDT resulted in millions of deaths. One source estimated the death total as 500 million.

“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others…If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate…without making the world too full…the state of affairs might be unpleasant but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to suffering, especially that of others.” (Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society)

Note: Although they’ve not managed to spread a Black Death, they have managed to ignite a worldwide conflagration of STDS and AIDS. Keep in mind that it’s progressives, liberals and their international cohorts who have been preaching their gospel of ‘salvation and redemption by sex’ (safe sex). What they don’t want you to know is that it’s the environment (Gaia) that they are trying to save from the human plague. Causing human weeds to become diseased, sterile, psychologically damaged, or to die is part of their scheme to redeem the world.

Ask yourselves why there has been no logical response to this plague. Why, for instance, has there been no call to quarantine the infected? And in the face of mounting death totals (468,000 dead from AIDs since 1981), why do they continue to teach your children to engage in the very behaviors which they know to be the cause of death? The CDC (2002) reports that 16,000 deaths from AIDs occur annually. Another 40,000 new cases of infection occur within the same time frame. There are 1 million cases of HIV, 31-50 million of herpes simplex, 24 million of HPV, and 1 million cases of chronic hepatitis B.

Now connect the dots between the Aids and STDs devastations and the 486,000,000 surgically and chemically induced abortions between 1965-1996 (www.rockforlife.org). It would appear that America is on a slippery-slope to committing demographic suicide.

How Many Should We Allow To Exist?

“The total world population should be no more than 2 billion rather than the current 5.6 billion.” (Cornell University professor David Pimentel, speaking before the American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science)
“The damage people cause is a function of demographics…One American burdens the earth much more than 20 Bangladeshes…In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.” (Jacques Cousteau, the UNESCO Courier, Nov. 1991)
“Cut the population by 90%” (Dr. Sam Keen, Gorbachev Conference in San Francisco)

In speaking before the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on Sept. 15, 2003, Michael Crichton told his audience, “certain human social structures…can’t be eliminated from society. One of those…is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which…the best people, the most enlightened…do not believe in any religion. But…you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind…suppress it in one form; it…re-emerges in another form. Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism.”

Environmentalism (worshipping the creation) in conjunction with social Darwinism (the scientism that validates this lethal brew) and Chesterton’s ‘theology of the demons’—these are the elements that comprise the most intrinsically evil religion ever known to mankind. A religious worldview which Stephane Courtois (The Black Book of Communism) condemned as a criminal ideology that attracts narcissists, diabolical narcissists, and megalomaniac psychopaths such as Stalin. And unless we can arrest it, as Churchill declared, it will “shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible.”

Sources

The Population Control Agenda, Stanley K. Monteith, MD
Intellectual Morons, Daniel J. Flynn
America’s Thirty Years War, Balint Vazsonyi
What We Can’t Not Know, J. Budziszewski
The Everlasting Man, GK Chesterton

Illegal Immigrants Take Many Reconstruction Jobs in New Orleans

2005-11-12T07:50:00.000-08:00

The plaque at the base of the Statue of Liberty says:

"Give me your tired, your poor,your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

It's time to shut the "golden door" and turn off the lamp.
*************************************************************************************
By Greg Flakus
November 10 , 2005

Some contractors in New Orleans stand accused of taking relief federal funds and using them to hire illegal aliens to rebuild the hurricane-ravaged city.

Recently New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin drew criticism for expressing the fear that his city might be, as he put it, "overrun by Mexican workers." Hispanic groups protested the mayor's statements, but his concerns are being echoed by many people in New Orleans and many more who were driven from the city by Hurricane Katrina two months ago. Illegal immigration is becoming a hot topic in the storm-ravaged city.

They say they are from the state of Tamaulipas, in northern Mexico, and that they came to New Orleans to repair roofs. Some of them say they have also worked in Houston, others say they were drawn over the border by the lure of high-paying jobs in New Orleans.

The work immigrants do in New Orleans is dirty, difficult, and sometimes dangerous, but the pay is good. Roofers can make $300 a day in New Orleans and many construction jobs pay $15 to $17 an hour.

Workers are in demand in New Orleans because about 140,000 residences were destroyed or severely damaged by Hurricane Katrina. Many people displaced by the disaster have no home to which they can return.

But some evacuees say contractors who accept funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other federal agencies should give preference to former residents when it comes to hiring workers. Contractors can pay immigrant workers less and not worry about housing, leaving them to live for weeks at a time in tents or trailers.

Among those watching the situation is Chris Simcox, co-founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, which advocates stricter enforcement of immigration laws. In a VOA phone interview, he says the Minutemen may soon go to New Orleans.

"We have been in contact with some officials of the New Orleans city government about starting a Minuteman watch group there," said Mr. Simcox. "Let us expose how the federal government is aiding and abetting illegal activity in this country."

The agency that investigates contractor hiring practices is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which along with FEMA, is part of the Department of Homeland Security.

ICE spokesman Dean Boyd, speaking by phone from his office in Washington, says agents are pursuing cases in New Orleans.

"I have no say about which companies have been contracted or hired and how those companies hired their employees," he said. "What I can tell you, as a law enforcement agency, we are and have been conducting operations in the Gulf coast area specifically to investigate the hiring practices of some of these companies that have been provided contracts."

Mr. Boyd says ICE agents arrested several illegal aliens who were working at a Navy facility in New Orleans recently. This came after Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu heard complaints from citizens who had been fired from jobs at the facility and replaced by lower-paid illegal workers.

Senator Landrieu has complained that policies that favor the hiring of illegal workers exacerbate the unemployment situation in Louisiana, which she says is almost as bad as it was during the Great Depression. Academics examining the situation say New Orleans may be undergoing a population swap, losing blacks who had lived there for generations, and gaining Hispanics, who counted for only three percent of the population before Katrina.

Minuteman leader Chris Simcox accuses the federal government of encouraging the influx of illegal immigrants and neglecting the needs of displaced citizens, both black and white.

"These are American citizens who are being displaced, who cannot pull themselves up by their bootstraps because the federal government is promoting illegal activity, promoting the hiring of people who are in this country illegally," added Mr. Simcox.

ICE spokesman Dean Boyd denies the federal government is turning a blind eye to the violation of immigration laws. But he says his agency cannot bring charges against a company without a thorough investigation.

"We have to establish by law, by laws enacted by Congress, that the company knowingly hired illegal aliens," he noted. "It is a difficult standard to prove, but nevertheless we are investigating and there are a number of investigations underway."

Contractors in New Orleans argue that they are taking on difficult, messy work using the workers who are available. They say that identifying illegal workers is not always easy. Many contractors say the priority should be getting New Orleans back on its feet as soon as possible and that the immigration debate should be left for another day.

“While We Slept, The Children Were Stolen”

2005-11-10T14:45:00.000-08:00

by Georgiana Preskar
President, Eagle Forum of Sacramento

Optimism can deceive us. Voter turn out and results is such an example. Though there was question as to a few Props passing, most people were optimistic that 73 would pass.

My thoughts, as I voted, brought me back to when I wrote my book. The reality of the Nation's APATHY was never more vivid. I tried to erase those thoughts staying focused on the success of Prop 73, as well as the others.

I was not surprised when I woke to the bad news. My sadness was deep. Many of you called with similar feelings. We are after all only human!

Many people chose to make excuses for the voter turn out and the choice of those who did vote. Others were completely silent such as CA and national newsrooms. Individual and parental authority was ignored!

The last century has waited patiently for this moment in time. Each victory for the Marxists and Communists is a thrust to move forward with their agendas.

Look around! First Amendment rights are disappearing fast for Judeo-Christians; God is silenced; crosses removed. The Second Amendment rights are gone in San Francisco. On November 8th, voters banned handguns and the ability to protect family, land and life. Our property is confiscated through eminent domain for the common good.

The Supreme Court decision that parents' have the ultimate authority in their children's educational upbringing is ignored. The state now controls the children. Soon 3 year-olds will be required to attend pre-school.

Chips will be inserted into our children and they will be tracked for the supposed excuse of safety. Family privacy is outdated for surveys now divulge family affairs that are not the business of the school or state.

Churches are told they have no rights to preach the word against homosexuality. Hate crime law is specific for those who do. We are called names if we do not adhere to the new political correctness, diversity and multiculturalism. We are racists if we want closed borders for our Nation's security or a common language spoken.

Family structure is disintegrating. Pornography is everywhere. Patriarchal heads of families are trained to be feminist oriented; we see principles of schools, business and government leaders, firemen and policemen falling prey to the whims of feminists and homosexuals who want the family to cave to their agenda. The military now allow women in active duty. Childbirth is decreasing. Gender neutral is good. All forms of sexuality are normal and natural.

History is being rewritten and truth erased. A different picture is painted for our children; America is ruthless and dishonorable in worldly affairs and thus needs change.

The New World is not far away. We watch Highways built that will connect our southern and northern neighbors with us. Silently we acknowledge the new North American Continent that will erase a middle class in favor of a false utopia that will give us a few elite at the top with the majority of poor at the bottom. Good-bye America!

Where is everyone? They are exactly where they have been for over 50 years, sleeping. The enemy is happy for now he can strike and be assured of success with his agenda.

The enemy is proud of the willingness of Church leaders to sleep through it all. Many leaders are afraid or perhaps too lazy to learn or preach a hard lined message that will smack the souls of those listening. Of course some are too busy building mega-churches. This effort keeps one from the true purpose of our life that is very simple, “To love, honor and obey God.” Not too difficult, but somehow the busy world keeps us from the simplicity that God gave us.

Worldly priorities kept church leaders from issues of abortion and parental authority; it was not preached strongly enough to wake up the people of California to vote. Our children will suffer, lost to the secular world and the APATHY that has taken over a once free America.

Long ago we opened the doors to those who planted seeds of destruction. Our Nation is split, not one Nation. With seeds of deception successfully grown, America now accepts socialist humanism refusing to discipline through Judeo-Christian ethics.

Though we are saddened by the results of November 8th, deep within we knew the truth. The APATHY has gone too far; how do we come back?

As we ponder this question, let us ask God to forgive this Nation for its sinful nature. Let us ask God to move us individually and collectively forward in His Name.

People ask, “Where to now, can we save our children and can America survive?”

“While we slept the last 50 years, the United States was stolen.” California had a second chance. It chose to sleep; children were stolen. It is a sad time! Can we save America? We must wake up first!

ANOTHER REASON TO SUPPORT PROPOSITION 74

2005-11-01T22:38:00.000-08:00

What’s All The Fuss Over The High School Exit Exam?

Our government-run school officials are running scared because in order for a high school student to graduate, he/she must pass the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). The exit exam is a two-part test, with math and English sections, which students must pass for a high school diploma starting with the class of 2006. According to San Diego County figures roughly 3,631 high school seniors still have not passed the exit exam, and that roughly 10 percent of students still need to pass the exam compared with more than 50 percent two years ago.

Could it possibly be that those same school officials see the CAHSEE as a performance test of how well they are teaching our children? There is research that linked performance on the California Standards Test, given to students in grades two through 11, to how a student will fare on the exit exam. Students who have trouble with basic middle school math will likely perform poorly in high school, that could lead to failing the exit exam. So why isn’t our government-run education system addressing the problem earlier?

The CAHSEE will provide a means by which school districts will not only be able to gauge the success of the students, but to gauge the success of the teachers. Granted teachers can’t do the job alone; parents have a responsibility to do their part as well. However, taxpaying parents have every right to demand quality education and educators. Our government-run school system is graduating children who cannot read or write; those children will be destined to become fast food workers or stuck in low paying jobs. Is it any wonder high tech job are outsourced? Statistics don’t lie.

Vote YES on Proposition 74!

The First Casualty of Our Nation's Cultural War … The Innocence of Our Youth

2005-10-28T06:08:00.000-07:00

Note from Angelic_Faces: The following articles were written by Mrs. Orlean Koehle, State President of Eagle Forum of California. Orlean is a substitute teacher and often shares her experiences with her fellow Eagles. What is happening on your child's or grandchild's government-run school campus? You may be surprised ... or, maybe not. But it's stuff like this that is causing the dangerous moral decay of our culture ... and the minds of our children and grandchildren.

***************************

"The First Casualty of War is Innocence." These words I saw written on several posters at Piner High School in Santa Rosa, CA, October 3, 2005, where I was asked to substitute teach in English and journalism. I wondered what war these posters were referring to? Could it be the culture war that American is now in - where our Christian heritage and beliefs are constantly under attack, and where our youth are the victims and do lose their innocence, purity, and even their faith.

The words on the poster were a little puzzling since the posters were put out by the Gay Straight Alliance network whose agenda and presence on our high school campuses is certainly not about promoting the "innocence" of our youth.

The poster goes on to read, "Know who you are and where you come from so you can make the right choices about what's right and what's just stay true to yourself."

At the bottom is written, "To order copies of this and other posters contact the Gay Straight Alliance.

I though to myself, what a dichotomy the words on this poster are. When I have heard presentations from the pro-gay groups that come onto our high school campuses, they tell our youth that there is no absolute truth, nor any absolute right or wrong. Now they are telling the young people to stay true to yourself so they can make the "right" choices about what is "right, " and who are they to talk about innocence?

Part of their poster is very true. If our young people truly know who they are - that they are children of God - and where they come from - from a loving Heavenly Father, then they can make right decisions about what is right and what is wrong. But they need to stay true to not just themselves. They need to stay true to the written commandments of God which are much better guides for them than just their inner feelings at the time.

Without a set of firm guidelines that come from God's Holy word, it would be very hard for young people today to have any idea who they are or where they come from or to be true to themselves. With the mixed messages they are receiving at public school today, they are as Paul describes in Ephesians 4:14, "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive."

The Gay, Straight Alliance Club is alive and well on just about every high school campus deceiving many of our young people and bringing them into a very dangerous and deadly lifestyle under the guise of "tolerance and acceptance and being true to yourself."

Along with the GSA Club, I discovered another club "lying in wait to deceive" at the same Piner High School.

Witches Alive and Well … And Not Just at Halloween

2005-10-28T06:01:00.000-07:00

by Orlean Koehle, President
Eagle Forum of California

In the journalism classroom during the lunch period I took time to browse through some of the former year books that the class was responsible for putting out. As I was looking at last year's book called "Kaleidoscope," (2004-2005), under the Activities Section, I was shocked to come upon a picture of girls all dressed in black, with gothic clothes and makeup, calling themselves "witches" under the title of "Celtic Club." Here are the words that were written describing their clubs activities:

“The Celtic Club is made up of a group of students at Piner who follow the religion of Wicca. The people in this club come together and celebrate their beliefs. Wicca is basically about herbal healing and protection and they practice these things by casting spells.

“One holiday that they come together and celebrate is Yule, Dec. 21st . Yule celebrates the rebirth of their god, the moon goddess' son and husband, the son God.

“The president of the club is sophomore Edith Rigger and the vice-president is junior Michell Bercut.

“They do all different kinds of spells and are all there for each other. “We all brought in objects that we always have with us to bless them with a protection spell,” said Junior Michelle Bercut.

“Even though they have only been together for a year, they are well on their way to being a very successful well-known club."

Is it not amazing that such clubs are condoned and recognized by the school administration? What ever happened to "Separation of Church and State? The Celtic Club is allowed to get together to perform their religious ritual on campus - casting spells. Is that not a little bit like a Christian saying a prayer on campus? The Celtic Club gets to celebrate their "Yule" festivity Dec. 21, in honor of their moon and sun gods. But the great Christian holiday, Christmas, in honor of the birth of Christ, the Son of God, doesn't even get to be put on the school calendar. It is now just listed as "winter holiday."

There is a Christian Club on campus at Piner High school that meets during the noon hour once a week like the other clubs. I wonder if they would be allowed to bring in "objects" like Bibles, crosses, statues of Christ, even nativity scenes, "to bless them with a protective prayer" like the Celtic Club gets to do with their objects? If that were the case, I bet the ACLU would be all over Piner High School.

If anyone is unaware that our nation is involved in a culture war, where Christian morals and principles passed down to us by our founding fathers are turned upside down, and the innocence of our youth is being destroyed on a grand scale, please go visit our public schools. Then start attending school board meetings and speak out against these attacks on our culture. You might even consider running for school board yourself. We must do our part to make a difference before our Christian culture is no longer recognizable.

American Citizenship Is Precious

2005-10-16T21:05:00.000-07:00

"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Senator Jacob Howard, Co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866
**********************************************************************************
Cristobal Silverio emigrated illegally from Mexico to Stockton, Calif., in 1997 to work as a fruit picker.

He brought with him his wife, Felipa, and three children, 19, 12 and 8—all illegals. When Felipa gave birth to her fourth child, daughter Flor, the family had what is referred to as an “anchor baby”—an American citizen by birth who provided the entire Silverio clan a ticket to remain in the U.S. permanently.

But Flor was born premature, spent three months in the neonatal incubator and cost the San Joaquin Hospital more than $300,000. Meanwhile, oldest daughter Lourdes married an illegal alien gave birth to a daughter, too. Her name is Esmeralda. And Felipa had yet another child, Cristian.

The two Silverio anchor babies generate $1,000 per month in public welfare funding for the family. Flor gets $600 a month for asthma. Healthy Cristian gets $400. While the Silverios earned $18,000 last year picking fruit, they picked up another $12,000 for their two “anchor babies.”

While President Bush says the U.S. needs more “cheap labor” from south of the border to do jobs Americans aren’t willing to do, the case of the Silverios shows there are indeed uncalculated costs involved in the importation of such labor—public support and uninsured medical costs ...
**********************************************************************************
by Phyllis Schlafly Oct. 12, 2005

Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) presided at a House hearing last week on Birthright Citizenship, Dual Citizenship and the Meaning of Sovereignty. It's unfortunate that this important subject received little media coverage.

The statistics are shocking. At least 383,000 babies are born in the United States every year to illegal aliens; that's 10 percent of all U.S. births and about 40 percent of indigent births.

The cost to the U.S. taxpayers is tremendous because all those babies, called anchor babies, claim birthright citizenship. Their mothers and other relatives then sign up for a vast stream of taxpayer benefits.

At least 12 million persons now live in the United States illegally. In addition, smugglers operate a thriving business of bringing in pregnant women from all over the world just in time to give birth and claim citizenship and citizens' benefits.

Why does the United States allow this racket to continue? Congress has failed to do its duty to protect American citizenship, sovereignty, and taxpayers.

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that U.S. citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Federal law uses almost identical language.

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is an essential part of the definition. History emphatically confirms the importance and necessity of those five words.

American Indians with allegiance to their tribes, despite the obvious location of their birth, did not receive U.S. citizenship until it was conferred by congressional acts in 1887, 1901 and 1924. Babies born to diplomats or their wives who happen to be in the United States at the moment of birth are not U.S. citizens.

The purpose of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was to assure that blacks are citizens, thus overturning the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous Dred Scott ruling that blacks could not be citizens. Congress thus rejected stare decisis in overruling that most supremacist decision in history.

The U.S. Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, and in the Fourteenth Amendment, gives all authority over citizenship and naturalization to Congress, not to the courts. Congress should end its silence and pass a law stating that a child born to an illegal alien is not a U.S. citizen because his parent has not made herself "subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction."

The peculiar notion that foreigners residing illegally in the United States should enjoy the same rights as American citizens is found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or federal law. This anomaly was created by supremacist judges who encouraged and protected the large-scale entry of illegal aliens into the United States.

One of President Dwight Eisenhower's mistakes, Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, created a brand-new addition to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Plyler v. Doe decision struck down a Texas law and created the requirement that the State of Texas must provide free public education to illegal-alien children.

The Plyler decision gave foreigners a powerful incentive to sneak into our country, enroll their children in our public schools, and start demanding other benefits paid for by U.S. taxpayers. This decision opened our borders to a stampede of illegal aliens, aided and abetted by one bad court decision after another.

Dual citizenship is also a problem because some immigrants have falsely been led to believe that they are or can be dual citizens. Mexico has even named a cabinet minister whose mission is to encourage Mexicans (both illegals and naturalized U.S. citizens) to vote in Mexican elections and, as he said, to "think Mexico first."

Congress has never legislated a specific prohibition on dual citizenship and the Supreme Court has never ruled on this precise point. But to become a U.S. citizen, immigrants are required by our law to swear allegiance to the United States AND to absolutely renounce any and all allegiance to the nation from which they came.

There is no ambiguity about the solemn oath that all naturalized Americans must take. "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; . . . and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Any naturalized U.S. citizen who claims dual citizenship with his native country betrays his solemn oath. We want immigrants to come to America and become Americans; we want patriotic assimilation.

Congress should pass a law stating that if naturalized U.S. citizens vote, hold office, or serve in the armed forces of their native country, they forfeit their American citizenship.

UNDER THE FALSE UMBRELLA OF OUR CIVIL DEFENSE SYSTEM

2005-10-08T09:29:00.000-07:00

Enlightenment can be such a dangerous thing. Whenever I attend an Eagle Council conference with Phyllis Schlafly to learn more from the various lineup of speakers and advocates about what’s going on in our Federal government (or in this case, what’s not going on) I am energized and ready to take action. I was particularly interested in the topic of missile defense systems. And while I’d like to say I’m not surprised, in this instance I can honestly say that I am one of the many Americans who thought the U.S. had a deployable missile defense program to protect us against an attack from weapons of mass destruction.

The Washington Times posted an article by Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough on September 9, 2005 called "Inside The Ring". This article talks about the connection between the narcotics business, al Qaeda extremists and China. It was from this article which caused me to look deeper into the subject and, hopefully encourage the readers to think about just how safe we truly are.

On of Phyllis' speakers at this year's Eagle Council conference in St. Louis, MO was Mr. Riki Ellison, former 49er/Oakland Raider Linebacker, and currently the President and Founder of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance . Mr. Ellison shared some startling statistics about our U.S. missile defense program, or lack thereof.

In his message he stated earlier this month the United States Congress debated the merits of the 2006 Defense Bill, which accounts for over $440 billion dollars. That substantial amount of tax dollars, paid by U.S. citizens, is deemed necessary for our nation’s defense and protection by the members of Congress and President Bush for the year 2006. Out of that colossal amount of tax dollars spent on defense, missile defense, which provides protection through deployment, deterrence and dissuasion for our population, cities, and economy, makes up less than 2% of that figure. National polling shows that 53% of the American public believes that missile defense is affordable, which includes solid support from Democrats, Independents and Republicans.

In addition, national polling showed that 79% of our population support having a missile defense system which shows a solid commitment and sends a clear message to our democratic leaders, in Congress and to the President, that missile defense needs to be embedded, funded and deployed.

Some of our elected leaders on the House floor offered amendments to cut funding and cut back programs essential for the safety of our public from ballistic missile threats. Senator Levin (Michigan) and Senator Reed (Rhode Island) have requested to take $50 million dollars from missile defense and put it towards counter-threat reduction (CTR), of which over $107 million dollars allocated in 2005 has not been spent; and the 2006 budget request for CTR of $415.5 million has been increased and is fully funded.

On September 29, 2005, Senators Levin(Michigan)and Reed(Rhode Island)withdrew their amendment to remove federal funding for the U.S. missile defense program. The collective voices of the concerned grassroots were heard by Congress and were successful in defeating the amendment. Thanks is offered to all who are working to make our country, our families and the world a safer place. Further proof that the voice of our citizenry can make a difference!

To this extent, MDAA has launched a software program on its web site allowing you real-time communication to all elected state and federal officials in the United States. I urge you and your friends to continue to let your voice be heard, make our democracy work and demand real protection for the real money you have given to the federal government.

CELEBRATING WHOSE HERITAGE, Part II

2005-10-07T10:37:00.000-07:00

Three weeks ago I posted a blog on Southwest Airlines' honoring Hispanic heritage. At that time I did not have a the peanut bag because in my disgust I tossed it in the seat-back-pocket and forgot to retrieve it. Well, I have the photo of the peanut bag and here it is on the left. I erred in my posting by saying the bag said "honor your heritage". Instead it says "celebrate your heritage". Honor, celebrate the slap to Americans still smarts and I'm still disappointed that Southwest Airlines has decided to honor the Hispanic heritage and not American heritage ... especially during the month of September which should be honoring the signing of the US Constitution.

OUR FOUNDING MOTHER … A GREAT LEADER IN GRASSROOTS CONSERVATISM AT 81!

2005-09-26T18:06:00.001-07:00

On Sunday, September 25, 2005 the XXXIV Eagle Forum conference came to an end in St. Louis. But not before our founding mother, Phyllis Schlafly, gave the grassroots conservative activists a motivating speech about judicial supremacy.

Phyllis told the 300+ Eagle Forum state representatives President Bush needs to appoint a Scalia/Thomas nominee; one who will base his/her decisions on our United States Constitution, not on international law, or treaties that have never been ratified. Last year Phyllis gave 478 radios interviews, 13 television interviews, 29 public speeches, and 82 radio commentaries. At 81 she is still going strong and remains an icon of conservatism and a leader in the pro-family movement.

We need Congress to do their job by limiting the jurisdiction of the courts to hear cases such as the Pledge of Allegiance, our United States Constitution and the definition of marriage. And, don’t let anyone tell you Congress doesn’t have the authority to do it … it’s in the Constitution, and Tom Daschle was able to limit the courts jurisdiction in South Dakota! Republicans take note!

PROTECTING OUR HOMELAND .... SECURITY

2005-09-25T16:31:00.000-07:00

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life." - John F Kennedy

Eagle Forum XXXIV wrapped up with a special surprise guest speaker, Mr. Chris Simcox of the Minuteman Project.

On October 1 the Minuteman Project will kick off a four southern border states and eight northern border states US Civil Border Operations; volunteers are needed.

It’s time the Republicans grab hold of this very important issue. Illegal aliens are costing the United States millions of dollars in health care, they’re taking advantage of our free government-run education system, bringing diseases like TB and whopping cough which had been eradicated in the U.S., and taking jobs away from Americans.

It’s time for Republicans to take a stand for upcoming 2006 and 2008 elections. If they don’t, the Democrats and Hillary Clinton will take hold of the issue and run with it. We already know the feminists are poised to vote for her. If she is successful at making immigration and closing our borders her platform issue, she will have the male population votes as well. Do you really want a President Hillary Clinton? I don’t!

As grassroots activists we need to be prepared to ask (and hammer) our elected officials and those seeking our support, endorsement and money to get elected, the following questions:

Do they believe there’s such a thing as too much immigration? If not, then they should be disqualified.
Do they consider themselves an open border candidate? If so, how do they envision the United States to look in the next 10, 20, or 50 years? If we don’t close our borders, or fall for a guest worker [they’re NOT guests, they’re illegals] program, then the value of our labor will be drawn down.
Do they believe population growth is good? If so, then who’s going to pay for our retirement if we continue to allow illegal aliens to cross our borders?
Do they believe there’s such a thing as an American culture? We should maintain our humility to God. We are a free enterprise nation because our core value is in God. Three things that make the United States great: Judeo-Christian values, free enterprise and western civilization.
Why shouldn’t every nation emulate the United States? Cultural continuity must be preserved.

We need to be armed with responses when we hear ridiculous statements such as:

We are a nation of immigrants. Ask them to name a nation that was not built by immigrants.
Immigrants do jobs that Americans won’t do. I may not have enough money to hire Bill Gates to mow my lawn, but I’ll bet Bill Clinton will do it just for the photo opportunity!
Immigrants are essential to our economy. That wouldn’t be necessary had we not aborted 45 million babies to fill that void!

We cannot help everyone .. And at some point our boat [the last refuge called America] will be filled and is at risk of sinking. The President claims to be a compassionate person to those who are only looking to have a better life … well folks, the President doesn’t have the right to adopt compassion in the case of illegal aliens. After the attacks of 9-11-01, President Bush reminded us to remain vigilant, to report suspicious and illegal activity. Why do we have a Department of Homeland Security if they’re not willing to secure our homeland? The sovereignty of our borders is at risk. Right now Congress has the responsibility to enforce our immigration policy and it’s about time they do something about it! In the immediate future we need to elect officials that will pledge to protect our national sovereignty, protect our borders and honor our United States Constitution.

IN HONOR OF WHOSE HERITAGE?

2005-09-18T22:29:00.000-07:00

On the flight home yesterday enroute from an energizing CA Republican Party Convention in Orange County, the flight attendants were passing out the traditional bags of peanuts. When I received my bag of peanuts, instead of the typical "byte-size" lingo, the peanut bag had a Spanish phrase: "Honorio tu Herencia" or, "honor your heritage." Whose heritage? One might assume since it was written in Spanish they were asking us to honor the Mexican heritage. But why couldn’t Southwest make reference to the signing of the United States Constitution? Or at least had the phrase in English, to honor our American heritage?

After all, it was on September 17, 1787 that our United States Constitution was signed. Our U.S. Constitution is the most near-perfect governmental document ever conceived by man through the providence of God and His principles. For over 218 years the United States has enjoyed civil, economic, religious and political liberties; no where else in this world can we be free to express our opinion without fear of reprisal. President George W. Bush has declared September 17th to be recognized each year as Constitution Day. Instead of recognizing the blessings of being an American, Southwest decided to recognize Mexican Independence Day on their bag of peanuts and I find this disrespectful to all American citizens, and especially to the United States.

I appreciate the victory the Mexican citizens experienced when they defeated and gained independence from Spain on September 15, 1821. I especially admire those who want to come to America to make a better life for themselves. My son-in-law immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico, and many of you have read how he got here and became a legal resident, and soon to be an American citizen. He is enjoying the American dream which is available to all who want to come here. But we are doing them [legal immigrants] a great disservice when we fail to teach them to assimilate to our culture. Our American heritage is one we can all be proud of, and we should give thanks to God and honor our heritage at all times lest we forget, and so will our children.

For over 25 years Southwest Airlines has enjoyed doing business in the United States. It's time they show their respect for her!

Visit: www.constitutionday.com and watch the special video narrated by General Tommy Franks, and learn how you can participate in celebrating our U.S. Constitution.

GOVERNOR ENDORSES PAYCHECK PROTECTION

2005-09-17T15:10:00.000-07:00

Excitement swelled as everyone anticipated the Governor’s arrival at the California Republican Party 2005 Fall Convention in Anaheim. The place is abuzz with politicians, politician-wannabes, initiative supporters, vendors, and believe I even saw Bob Mulholland making his way through the hallways gathering literature, etc.

The banquet room was filled with over 530 dining guests and a horde of reporters. Yep, I even saw SactoDan standing on the press platform. The 100+ Young Republicans all wearing their tee shirts with Rebuild/Reform entered the room to rally the crowd to their feet and proudly waiving their signs as the Governor made his way to the podium. One of the many statements he said that stood out to me was: he is bloodied, but ready for battle. In one of his earlier speeches this year he said he wanted to blow up the boxes. Governor Schwarzenegger, many of us are still waiting for you to light the fuse to the dynamite. So, please Governor Schwarzenegger, don't let us down!

Today the Governor handed the supporters of Proposition 75 - Paycheck Protection - a nice gift. He finally came out in support of giving public employees the right to determine where their union dues are spent! Thank you, Governor Schwarzenegger! In addition to Proposition 75, the Governor also endorsed Propositions 74, 76 and 77. The crowd changed YES ON 74, 75, 76 AND 77! Over and over until the Governor said, good, I know you got it.

Before the luncheon, I attended the breakout session on Proposition 75 - Paycheck Protection. Many of you who have read my previous blogs know that I am an avid supporter of Proposition 75 and protecting the right of all public employees to determine whether their hard-earned money should be used to support political activities.

In 1998 a similar proposition was initiated. Proposition 226 was the first paycheck initiative which addressed all labor unions and contributions from foreign citizens. Proposition 226 failed primarily because the union falsely reported that it would disclose public safety official’s information and would affect charitable contributions. When organizations such as American Cancer Society and others heard this, and especially law enforcement official’s fear that their records could become public [a lie by the public employee unions], those two issues became the main focus of opposition to Proposition 226.

When Proposition 75 was drafted, the authors studied what happened in 1998 in order to avoid the same pitfalls. Proposition 75 is much different than Proposition 226 in that it only affects public employee unions and it has nothing to do with foreign contributions. Proposition 75 is plain and simple: it provides a form that will be used to check a box that gives a public employee‘s “approval” to use that portion of their union dues to support political activities. It also lays out what the form shall look like, requires the union to keep the form on record, and provides provisions for FPPC scrutiny. It also provides the form shall not be subject to the Public Records Act.

Proposition 75 provides that the public employee unions must get an employee’s permission before using their union dues for political activities. Get your petitions today and support Proposition 75!

PROSTITUTING VALUES FOR THE SAKE OF A WIN

2005-09-16T10:00:00.000-07:00

If you're a conservative Republican, should the party prostitute courage, integrity and values for a win?

Well, the United States Senate primary race in Rhode Island is heating up. The seat is currently held by liberal Republican Lincoln Chafee. Recent news received from friends on the east coast indicates that the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) has offered an in-kind contribution of $500,000 to the Rhode Island Republican Party (RIRP) to ensure the incumbent‘s victory.

I’m told the RNC typically doesn‘t involve itself in primary elections. But in this case they are more interested in re-electing a man said he couldn't vote for President Bush, is against the war on terrorism (keeping the war in their backyard and not ours), votes wrong on immigration, often votes against traditional family values . Senator Chafee is a RINO (Republican In Name Only) and reportedly ran out of the US Capitol building when the planes struck on 9-11-01 into the ghettos of Washington DC because he felt “safer” there. I know I’m going to take some heat for “dividing” the party. But I can’t understand why the RNC interested in keeping this cowardly man in office? I know it’s primarily to maintain a Republican majority, but Lincoln Chafee has proven himself unworthy of keeping his seat on more than one occasion.

There is a challenger to Senator Lincoln Chafee; his name is Stephen P. Laffey, and he is the current Mayor of Cranston Rhode Island. It should also be noted that the RIRP has stated that they don’t want him to run because he’s “too conservative.” He is described by his supporters as confident that he could win the primary against the incumbent senator. However, RNC leaders (Ken Mehlman and Senator Elizabeth Dole) continue to pressure Laffey to stay out of the RI Republican primary election against liberal Senator Lincoln Chafee.

The money issue revolves around a rule (Rule 11) by the RNC requiring the written approval of the top state GOP officials to give money "to any candidate for any public or party office except the nominee of the Republican Party or a candidate who is unopposed in the Republican primary after the filing deadline for that office." National Committee Members Morgan and Slocum signed the agreement letter weeks ago.

Last week Robert Manning, the GOP national committeeman said, “no national GOP money should be spent to help Rhode Island [primary] candidates until after party members have decided whom the candidates will be.” He also stated, "the party bosses should not inject themselves in a party primary process, we should let the voters make those choices. I was not elected to disenfranchise the voters."

At the RIRP’s Central Committee meeting Manning said he would sign the so-called Rule 11 letter if a majority of the state party delegates wanted him to. The State Central Committee voted 130 to 45 to accept the $500,000 from the RNC.

The RIRP Chairwoman Patricia Morgan said the money would be used for “party building.” But it is clear to those who support Mayor Stephen Laffey that the money will be used to benefit Chafee. The letter to the Republican National Committee signed by party leaders says the state leaders "approve any and all pre-primary financial assistance and in-kind aid the RNC may choose to provide in furtherance of the U.S. Senate campaign of Senator Lincoln Chafee."

Shouts of "you lied" erupted from the room from the supporters of Laffey. Laffey called the meeting "a con job . . . by the party leaders."
At the meeting Manning told the 250 or so voting delegates and other nonvoting party leaders that he would sign the letter given "a clear mandate." "The RNC does not need our sign-off for party building," he warned. "In my view, that is the RNC dictating choices to the Republican voters of Rhode Island."

Steve Frias, a Laffey supporter, pushed an amendment requiring the services to "be available to all declared Republican candidates on an equal basis." "How can we be the party of reform if we pick the winner," Frias asked.

Morgan said if they were made available to all candidates, the RNC would not provide the assistance. She said the money and those party-building services will only go to the "endorsed" candidate. For the time being, she said, Chafee as the incumbent senator is considered endorsed. That amendment failed, 121 to 46.

This clearly shows that the RIRP is willing to prostitute itself by taking the money to support a candidate that clearly does not vote “values”. The GOP is providing a great disservice and disenfranchizing the Republican voters in Rhode Island who support the Republican Party Platform and issues that matter. Instead the GOP is more interested in maintaining a candidate with an “R” behind the name [Chafee] than allowing the people to choose who they want to represent them. Chafee’s campaign manager Ian Lang said: "As the poll shows, more than 54 percent of the people in Rhode Island believe Sen. Chafee is doing a good or excellent job." If you’re a conservative Republican, all you need do is look at Chafee’s voting record and you make the decision.

The Ugly Truth About Sacramento

2005-09-12T21:50:00.000-07:00

I just had to post the following article by Steven Greenhut Sr., editorial writer and columnist with the Orange County Register. Mr. Greenhut hit the nail on the head about what's happening in our State Legislature. They voted to give themselves an 11% raise, then they insult our intelligence by introducing the most ridiculous legislation that has nothing to do with making California safer, improving our government-run education system, protecting our children from sexual predators, or fix our infrastructure. Instead, as the reporter points out, they focus on transporting puppies, homosexual marriage, and giving illegal aliens drivers licenses. A good reason to vote "YES" on redistricting!

*******************************************************************

SACRAMENTO – There's a reason for the old cliche that if you like to eat sausages or have any respect for a nation's laws, you ought not see either one being made. I've never toured a slaughterhouse, but I have watched a few legislative sessions, most recently last week in Sacramento. It was an ugly sight, watching legislators ram through hundreds of bills in the final four days before recess.

But the ugliness goes deeper than the messiness of sausage-making: Those who control the legislative process (i.e., Sacramento Democrats) seem to have no concept of the nation's founding principles, such as limited government, personal responsibility, the rule of law, free enterprise. Even when they quote the founding fathers, they know only the words and not the meanings.

Making legislative sausage - the arm-twisting, compromising, backroom-deal-making, back-stabbing - is not for the faint of heart. A particularly nasty incident has been reported in the Sacramento Bee. Earlier this month the state Senate's dictatorial Appropriations Committee chairwoman, Democrat Carole Migden of San Francisco, marched over to the Assembly floor to watch a vote on her bill to add new regulatory requirements for cosmetic manufacturers.

With the bill one vote shy of passage, she went to Republican Guy Houston's desk and pushed the "yes" button so that a vote would be electronically recorded. The normally mild-mannered Assemblyman Bob Huff, the Diamond Bar Republican who sits next to Houston, saw this and had to push Migden's arm away, then undo the vote. Huff told me that Migden's excuse - that she thought the desk was a Democrat's - is bogus. She has a reputation for doing this, he said, and even if it had been a Democrat's desk, a senator has no right to cast a vote in the Assembly chambers. Assemblyman Todd Spitzer said Migden might have committed a felony, although he argued for a reprimand rather than prosecution. Even that's unlikely, since Midgen is chairwoman of the committee that dispenses the cash.

Even that ugly incident is nothing compared with this reality: Many Californians surely believe that their Legislature is busy with the important work of governing this state of 35 million people and dealing with the serious economic and management issues facing it. Instead, the lawmaking process actually is consumed with the current enthusiasms and whims of the Democratic psyche.

Approximately 400 bills reached the floor of the Assembly in the final four-day frenzy, with only about 45 of them authored by Republicans. One bill after another ... tax, spend, regulate and impose the liberal Democratic social vision on the state.

There's the plan to raise the state's minimum wage, with the sponsors oblivious to how such increases actually reduce the number of lower-paying jobs. There's a proposal mandating gender-equity in the workplace, which would allow anyone with a grievance, real or perceived, to sue his or her employer. Enabling more lawsuits, actually, seems to be a big Democratic priority. There are the bills to let workers sue their employers over labor concerns or over environmental concerns. There are the bills that let consumers sue businesses.

There are the curriculum mandates - e.g., requiring students to be taught in their native language, in apparent violation of Proposition 227, or mandating the teaching of tolerance. There's a bill that would trigger a tax audit of companies that have labor violations. There are bans on junk faxes and on certain kinds of car loans. There is a bill that creates a reparations fund for Mexican-Americans unfairly repatriated to Mexico decades ago. And don't forget the attempt to provide driver's licenses to those in the state illegally, and the endless proposals to add more regulations on every known activity.

The situation reminds me of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." The legislators look normal, and most are personable, but they have been taken over by space aliens who believe the most otherworldly things.
Then there are the many innocuous technical bills that simply are hard to understand. Almost everyone supports these, although Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, occasionally opposes them. DeVore cites historical concerns about creating a government so big that it saps people's energy and spirit. That's what's happening in Sacramento. All the technical changes are needed because this gargantuan government is so big that it requires endless tinkering.

Much attention has been focused on the gay-marriage bill, which took ages to debate on the Assembly floor, with nearly every Democratic supporter, including Santa Ana's Tom Umberg, giving faux Lincoln speeches filled with self-congratulations on the historic nature of what they were doing. But most of the hundreds of bills moved forward without much debate. Republicans knew there was no point in spending too much time opposing things that would certainly pass. "It's different from the days of Gray Davis, because we have a backstop in the governor," said Spitzer. Republicans, he told me, are trying to put up as few votes as possible on the bad legislation as a sign that a bill might be veto bait.
As one crazy Democratic proposal passed the Assembly floor, some one in the back of the room said out loud: "What's another veto between friends?" I can only hope the governor wields that veto pen often.
"It's a waste legislatively," said Assemblyman Van Tran, R-Garden Grove. "We're not taking up reform issues. ... Ninety percent of the legislation will be Democratic-inspired. It's more laws, more regulation, more fees and taxes. ... What's there to debate?" He points to examples: a bill dealing with transporting puppies across state lines, an attempt to put stampings on bullets, a bill limiting the number of pages in school textbooks.

"Anything you do in the last days of the session is not good," said Senate Republican Leader Dick Ackerman, R-Irvine. But he jokingly reminds me that what's going on "is a time-honored tradition!" DeVore calls it "folly on top of inanity on top of outrage."

And the nightmare I've just described occurred this year during a relatively calm end of session, since on many issues legislators and lobbyists were biding their time and marshalling resources for the special election in November, and Democrats were holding back on the really crazy stuff lest voters notice and get angry.

In all this, American constitutional ideals of limited government, due process, private property and other individual rights, and economic freedom are abandoned by Democratic state legislators, who seem rather to have substituted a set of their own guiding principles:

* There is no aspect of your life, no matter how petty or personal, that should be off-limits from the meddling of government, outside of sexual matters.

* Government holds the solution to nearly every problem; those problems that cannot be solved by government can be solved by trial lawyers.

* Businesses are evil and out to do harm, and therefore need more regulation to force them to behave properly.

* Individuals cannot be trusted to make wise choices, which is why the Legislature and the state's bureaucracies need more money and more power.

Those are ugly truths, but it's better to know the reality that Californians face in the halls of their government than to continue holding on to civics-textbook illusion.

Why The Republican Party Platform Matters

2005-08-31T20:38:00.000-07:00

In the past few months I have been wrestling with an issue that has weighed heavily on my heart. What it would be like if the Republican party platform didn’t exist? What if being a Republican didn’t mean standing to resist the efforts of the liberals in the Democrat Party to redefine the traditional family … the only stable relationship upon which to build a society? That the well-being of children is best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father anchored by the bonds of marriage?

I am particularly bothered by the surfacing of a radio interview by the president of the Log Cabins of Sacramento. In August of 2004, the president of the Log Cabin Republicans of Sacramento, Jeff Scott, participated in an interview on Sacramento’s radio station KFBK. In that interview [audio clip attached and transcript below] Jeff Scott responded to the question regarding the Republican party platform - approved by the Party against gay marriage. He stated, “no one reads the [party] platform, so who cares?” And he goes on to say that, “I don’t give the platform a whole lot of credence basically.”

The reason why? The talking points link on the Log Cabins of Sacramento website outlines six strategies to combat the conservative core values by calling those core values “a veil for hate“. They believe they need to instill tolerance and acceptance within the Republican party to justify their lifestyle. To do anything less violates their “civil rights”. I get really angry when I see a lifestyle choice equated with race. A black person cannot change the color of his skin [unless your Michael Jackson], but homosexuals can change their lifestyle choice. Read the following talking point taken directly from their website:

“Why its OK to be a Gay Republican: To some people, being a gay Republican seems like an oxymoron. We disagree. The Republican Party's founding principles and core beliefs represent a powerful tool that should be used to defend liberty-not attack it as the radical right has done. Their dogged campaign to block gay and lesbian civil rights goes against the party's core principles of smaller government and personal freedom. They use values as a veil for hate. The radical right's influence on the GOP can be diminished one voter at a time, by making the case for fairness. That is what motivates the Log Cabin Republicans to lead today's most important battle for the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans. Even those in the gay community who disagree with our politics should realize our value. Here is why it is okay being a gay Republican:

“1. Gay and lesbian Americans who believe in limited government, strong national defense, lower taxes, personal responsibility, and free markets belong in the Republican Party. Democrats who favor big government, higher taxes and more regulation don't represent our values and beliefs. That means leaving the GOP is not an option for gay Republicans. We can be true to our conservative principles while working to make the GOP more inclusive and tolerant.

“2. Defeating the radical right and transforming the GOP will allow gay and lesbian Americans to achieve full equality much sooner-decades sooner. The radical right represents the last obstacle on the path to full equality. Defeat them in the grassroots of the GOP and all of us can enjoy the benefits of liberty much sooner.

“3. The party will change only from the inside. Pressure from the outside, from the far left won't work. The GOP must be transformed one person at a time, across America on the grassroots level by gay Republicans and their fair-minded allies. Across America, gay Republicans are shattering stereotypes and educating rank-and-file Republicans about the importance of fairness and equality for gay and lesbian Americans. This is the right path to progress.

“4. Achieving total equality will take decades longer unless our community has strong allies in both parties. There aren't enough votes in the Democratic Party to achieve sustained legislative victories. Even if all gay Republicans left the party, the GOP would still be there. That is why we reach out to fair-minded Republicans-making the case for fairness.

“5. We are doing important work to the transform the GOP, bringing about the same grassroots change that happened in the Democratic Party over the last three decades. We applaud the gay and lesbian activists who worked so hard to change the Democratic Party-making it more inclusive and tolerant. 25 years ago, had gay and lesbian members left the party, then the Democrats would not be where they are today on issues of equality and fairness. We are now doing similar work in the GOP.

“6. The history of the Republican Party makes it a natural ally of equality. In 2004, the Republican Party marks the 150th anniversary of its first national convention. Looking toward history can help the GOP chart its future course. The Republican Party rose to power because it embraced the ideals of equality imagined by our nation's founding fathers. When President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, he created a new birth of freedom. So it can be again. Nearly 150 years later-the GOP has another chance to choose fairness over discrimination, equality over bigotry, freedom over fear.”

Clearly their intent is to “change the party from the inside.” And nothing could be more evident than what is happening within the Sacramento County Republican Party. They are positioning themselves within the party to attempt to eliminate the voices of the pro-family conservatives calling us the "radical right”. No doubt they are chomping at the bit to change the party platform … because no one reads it, or cares. While we are asleep at the helm (or are we?), they will infiltrate and strip away what it really means to be a Republican based on the party’s core values, so that the party is nothing more than the Democrat party with a Republican name.

I'd have to say it absolutely is an oxymoron to call yourself a gay Republican. Especially if you're a member of the LCRs. How can you call yourself a fiscally conservative, but opposed the recall of former Governor Gray Davis who was recalled for fiscal mismanagement? It's well-known that Davis was a "homosexual friendly" governor and he gave them all the legislative candy. Then when President George W. Bush mentioned the Federal Marriage Amendment, they placed inflammatory information on their website against the President. When Sacramento County Republican Party chairman Donna Schlansky got wind of it, they were told to change their website. Recent information has surfaced that a copy of the [previous] website has been obtained. I hope to have it posted soon so that everyone can see the hypocricy behind the homsexual Republicans.

After you’ve listened to the audio clip, ask yourself the following questions: If you’re a Republican, how important is the party platform to you? Does the party platform really matter? Are you willing to take a stand to protect the Republican party platform and YOUR core values?

What Being a Republican Means to Me

2005-08-28T18:32:00.000-07:00

As soon as I turned 18 and eligible to vote I registered as a Democrat. Why? Well, for one I hadn’t quite formed my own opinion of politics, and besides my parents were JFK Democrats. They believed in the American way and government helping “the little people”. The Viet Nam war was coming to a close, but I had no idea why we were fighting. All my hippie friends were opposed to war and guns, the “man”, and it was all about “free love“. But as I got older, and I‘d like to think a little wiser, I started looking at the differences between being a Democrat and a Republican.

The real turning point for me was learning what it meant to take on personal responsibility; that every choice has a consequence. This became clearer to me especially after I left the Attorney General’s office to take a promotion with the State Public Defender. There was something different about those lawyers … I was surrounded by “bleeding heart” liberals who were more interested in twisting and misapplying case law and coming up with the most cockamamie excuses [all under the premise of effective assistance of counsel] to get their client off the hook. The one case etched forever in my mind is the man who murdered his girlfriend and sexually molested her two children before killing them. He mutilated their bodies and threw them in a dumpster, lighting them on fire to cover up his crime. This murderer happened to be of Greek descent. So the public defender had the bright idea to send a private investigator (of course all at taxpayer expense) to Greece to interview friends and family to find out if his crime could have anything to do with his Greek “upbringing.” For you see, we can’t be responsible if there’s someone else or a culture to blame. I believe in the death penalty, but I became particularly hardened by my experience at the public defender’s office. I grew to despise what I believed [and still do] Democrats stood for: free handouts and not having to accept personal responsibility for their actions. That was 17 years ago.

Today I am a Republican because of what the party stands for: protecting the sanctity of life, recognition of traditional marriage between one man and one woman, no new taxes, less government, and most importantly personal accountability. I have tried to instill these principles into my children so that they will grow up to be responsible human beings, and pass them onto their children. And no one knows more about the consequences of their actions than my son-in-law who crossed the border illegally 20 years ago. I found out he was illegal when he asked to marry my daughter. They married and he took himself down to the immigration office and started the paperwork to become legal. His punishment? He was sent back to Mexico for nine months while his paperwork was being processed. Today he has a valid green card and is an honest hard-working husband and father, and soon-to-be American citizen. No longer does he have to fork out $800 to buy an illegal social security card; no longer does he have to look over his shoulder wondering if this is the day he is arrested and deported. He knows the by doing the right thing his conscience is clear. When all is said and done, it all comes back to taking on personal responsibility.

OUR NATION'SGODLY HERITAGE, Part II

2005-08-25T20:40:00.000-07:00

Since the earliest moments of our nation's history, our leaders have called for national days of prayer, repentance and fasting. When an impasse had been reached at the Continental Congress, Benjamin Franklin called for prayer with these words: "I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men… And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? I therefore beg leave to move--that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business..."

Less than 100 years later, a concerned Abraham Lincoln called for national prayer in the midst of the Civil War. "WHEREAS, The Senate of the United States; devoutly recognizing the Supreme authority and just government of Almighty God in all the affairs of men and nations, has, by a resolution, requested the president to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and humiliation. And Whereas, it is the duty of nations, as well as of men, to owe their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon, and to recognize the sublime truth announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord."

Many other statesmen, presidents and leaders have called on the nation to turn to God in prayer. In 1952, President Truman signed a joint resolution of Congress, creating the National Day of Prayer, and in 1988 it became a law under the signature of President Ronald Reagan. During the earliest days of the conflict in Iraq, Congress called for a day of humiliation, fasting and prayer.

Daniel Weintraub: European Model Is No Model For Us

2005-08-20T21:02:00.000-07:00

OPINION By Daniel Weintraub
Published 2:15 am PDT Sunday, August 14, 2005

I picked up Jeremy Rifkin's latest book, "The European Dream" (Tarcher/Penguin, 2004 $25.95) hoping to be convinced that the continent's approach to government and economics, increasingly the model for public policy in the California Legislature, has some redeeming qualities. It may, but they weren't apparent from Rifkin's tome.

The best-selling author's bottom line is that American individualism is being overtaken by the more collectivist European approach, where government and business are conducted in a cooperative atmosphere that Rifkin says will lead to more prosperity and happiness for all. Unfortunately, the foundation upon which Rifkin builds his entire analysis about the future, perhaps his entire world view, is fatally flawed. He misunderstands the basic character of the free market system he so harshly condemns.

"Markets, by their very nature, are adversarial forums," Rifkin writes. "They are arm's-length exchanges where each party enters into the negotiation with the idea of maximizing his own self-interest at the expense of the other party."

This is simply wrong. Whether they are selling shoes or cars, computer software or legal services, the actors in a market system are trying to reach a position of mutual benefit. One will part with his money and the other with his goods or services only if both are satisfied that they will be better off after the exchange. And particularly for the seller, the desire is not to screw the other party, as Rifkin asserts, but to make them so deliriously happy that they will return to buy more of what you are selling and recommend you to their friends and associates.

But after setting up this straw man, Rifkin tries to knock it down with a definition of the new European capitalism that more accurately reflects the values of the American system he sees as on the wane.

"Networks," he says, "operate on an entirely different principle. Each party enters into the relationship based on the supposition that by optimizing the benefits of the other parties and the group as a whole, one's self-interest will be maximized in the process."

This reversal is typical of a book where up is often down and black is white. Rifkin, for example, insists that the European Union is a cutting-edge example of bottom up, decentralized government.

Whenever possible, he says, governing decisions "ought to be made as far down and as close as possible to the communities and constituents most affected by the decisions."

Unfortunately, there is little evidence in Rifkin's book, in the actions of the European governments or in the proposals by those Americans and Californians who believe in the European model that they really trust communities and individuals to make such decisions. From health care to transportation, education to science, they are instead seeking to create a top-down, cradle-to-casket cocoon in which the highest levels of government make as many decisions as possible for us.

Given these contradictions within the book itself, one must view with skepticism Rifkin's overarching comparison of the European and American dreams. The European version, he says, is contained in the proposed constitution, which he predicted in the book would soon be ratified, failing to foresee that the citizens of France and the Netherlands would unceremoniously reject it.

"If we were to sum up the gist of the document, it would be a commitment to respect human diversity, promote inclusivity, champion human rights and the rights of nature, foster quality of life, pursue sustainable development, free the human spirit for deep play, build a perpetual peace, and nurture a global consciousness," he writes.

"Together, these values and goals, which appear in many different forms throughout the constitution, represent the warp and woof of a fledgling European Dream."

The American Dream, based on private property, individual freedom and personal responsibility, "is a very old dream," he writes, "and becoming increasingly irrelevant in the new era of globalization."

In his 1979 book, "The Emerging Order," Rifkin predicted the imminent onset of frightening global scarcity. In 1994, he predicted "The End of Work," in which computers and automation would create mass unemployment. Despite these and other futurist misfires, however, he remains a leading intellectual and commentator of the American left, so he shouldn't be dismissed as a crank.

This book is worth reading if for no other reason than to better understand the underpinnings of the movement Rifkin reflects. And it does contain some valid insights about the global economy and our changing world. But once Rifkin leaves the realm of fact and moves to philosophy, he is on much shakier ground.

Coalition Formed to Lobby Against SB 60

2005-08-20T20:30:00.000-07:00

By Mrs. Orlean Koehle
President, Eagle Forum of California
Sacramento - August 16, 2005

Eagle Forum of California President, Orlean Koehle, Legislative Director Angela Azevedo, and Issue Chairman over Illegal Immigration, Gary Bosley, were invited to be part of a coalition that met the evening of August 16th for dinner and speakers at the Hyatt Hotel in Sacramento.

The coalition was organized by Rick Oltman of FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), and consisted of members of several groups that are standing up against illegal immigration in the state of California: Mike Spence, California Republican Assembly; Barbara Coe, President of CCIR (California Coalition for Immigration Reform) and many members of her group; Diana Hull, of Californians for Population Stabilization; and Andy Ramirez and others from Friends of the Border Patrol.

Eagle Forum announced and handed out brochures for the annual Eagle Forum of California September 17th fundraiser and banquet in Santa Rosa, featuring Chris Simcox of the Minute Man Project. A portion of the proceeds from the auction will go towards the Minute Men and their efforts to protect our borders.

Speakers at the evening meeting were Senator Tom McClintock, Assemblymen Ray Haynes and Dennis Mountjoy, all conservative Republicans, who are not afraid to voice their strong objections to the open-border policies that seem to be part of the Bush administration. McClintock said that when the borders are open, when illegals receive free medical care, are issued drivers licenses, and all the benefits of being a citizen of this great nation have been given away, American citizenship will mean nothing. He told us that we must continue to have our voices heard on these issues, to write letters to editors, call in on talk radio shows, call your representatives and let them know how strongly you are opposed and they are to be representing your voice. When enough people contact them they begin to listen, especially if it affects their reelection.
"When they feel the heat, then they see the light."

Assemblyman Ray Haynes asked for our support in gathering petition signatures for his initiative of putting the police on the borders in California. We need to have enough signatures for the December 12th filing. He asked for us to also contact the Governor and demand that he declare a state of emergency in California concerning our borders. This is an emergency. Our state is in a crisis just as are all the border states, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas, with illegals flooding across the borders sometimes as many as 8,000 a day.

Dennis Mountjoy spoke candidly about the real reason why democrats want illegals to have drivers' licenses. It is not going to make them get insurance, it won't make our roads safer. What it will do is get more votes for democrats. As soon as a person receives his driver's license, he is handed a voter registration card. It's called "Motor Voter."

And we all know that most illegals have been taught that they are to register and vote democrat, so that is what they do. The other reason is they have been taught to believe that all the seven western states were once part of Aztlan, once under the control of the Aztec Indians, which they are taught were their forefathers. Thus they think that all the land of Utah, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and Texas should rightfully be theirs anyway, thus they are here to take it back. The best way to do that is to come in with large populations, be granted the right to vote so they can run their people and get them elected. Their history has been rewritten just as U.S. history has. Aztlan is a fictitious place that never existed. The Aztec Indians were only in Mexico and Central America and never spread out over the western states. This is actually what Cruz Bustamante, our Lieutenant Governor said, "SB 60 will pave the road to Aztlan."

Andy Ramirez, President of Friends of the Border Patrol, shared all that he has been going through because he, as a Latino, believes in standing up for American laws and protecting our borders. He is called racist, and a "coconut," brown on the outside, white on the inside. He said the border watch is based on neighborhood watch. Its purpose is to protect American lives and homes who live along the border and to protect American sovereignty. He described it as what you would see in a wild west show like the OK Coral. The illegals have dug fox holes where they hide. It begins to smell like a sewer. They have slit the throat of a family dog that was barking, they have cut fences and let the cattle and horses out, they killed a woman and stole her car. A woman went for a walk just five minutes from her home and got raped.

Not only are Mexicans crossing. They have found prayer rugs belonging to Arabs, Afghanistan, and Palestinians. There are lots of drugs being smuggled across. They have dug tunnels sixty feet below the surface through which the drugs are smuggled. The drugs are picked up by vehicles. If the drug mugglers think that they are being followed, they switch over to the other side of the freeway and go the wrong way, where no police officer would dare follow them. It does not matter to them if they cause a few accidents or kill people in the process. He pointed out that these drivers normally do have drivers licenses. They are not any safer drivers because of it. They will endanger anyone on the road to get their drugs to their destination and to not be caught.

Rick Oltman, our host, was the concluding speaker. He handed out materials that we would need in lobbying the next morning and gave us some points on what to say. The plan was for the coalition to organize that evening and to come as a united front to testify at the hearing of SB 60 the next day in the Appropriations Committee. However, we found out that SB 60 had been pulled. Rick Oltman said, "The democrats must have heard that we were coming and pulled it." They are probably waiting when they can have it heard without much opposition. That happens quite often on controversial bills.

Members of the coalition still lobbied against SB 60 the next morning and had their scheduled meeting in the Governor’s office, even without the Governor. He was supposedly in San Diego viewing the borders and assessing the illegal immigration problem. Our coalition met with his chief aid instead, Richard Costigan. We were introduced and various ones had the opportunity to express how strongly we feel about the crisis California is now in because of illegal immigration. We urged him to please tell the Governor to veto SB 60 if it is passed and comes across his desk That would bring a big surge in his popularity in California. Mr. Costigan suggested that we all write a formal letter to the Governor on our individual letterhead and tell him that.Mrs. Orlean Koehle, asked Mr. Costigan how the Governor feels about joining the governors of New Mexico and Arizona in declaring California a state of emergency because of the illegal immigration crisis. He answered that the Governor was assessing that problem and decision as we speak and would soon make up his mind. As we entered and left the Governor's office there was a small group of illegals outside. One woman saw all of our name tags and the organizations that we represented. She began to scream, "Racists! They are trying to take away our rights, our freedoms. She tried to push her way into see the Governor. She had to be escorted by armed police outside. it was interesting how they love to pull the "race" card if they see anything going on that they do not like. It didn't seem to matter that several of our delegation were Latino, their same race.

A conference sponsored by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture (publishers of Front Page Magazine), FAIR, and CIRCA (Coalition for Immigration Reform in California) will be held in Southern California on Friday, August 26th from 8 AM to 5 PM at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel in Beverly Hills, California. In Northern California, Eagle Forum invites you to come and hear Chris Simcox of the Minute Man Project, and John Clark, producer of a documentary about the Minute Men and the out of control borders, September 17th at the Fountain Grove Inn, Santa Rosa.
Visit our website for more information and details, and download registration form: http://www.eagleforumofcalifornia.com/.

COMPULSORY UNION DUES

2005-08-19T07:50:00.000-07:00

VOTE YES!

Proposition 75 - Paycheck Protection Initiative

One of the first questions typically asked by politically savvy individuals who are starting a new job that falls under a collective bargaining agreement is if they have to join the union and pay union dues. While individuals cannot be forced to join a union, they can be forced to pay union dues. The U.S Supreme Court, in Communications Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), clarified that under the National Labor Relations Act (NRLA) non-members can be required to pay a union fee (“agency fee”) that equals their share of what the union can prove are its costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.

Union dues are typically split into two parts. The first and largest portion is an agency fee, which is used to support union representation, collective bargaining, and benefits. The second portion is a political fee, which is used for lobbying, membership recruitment, campaigning, and other political purposes.

Compulsory Union Dues for Ideological Purposes

The question then is whether a union can force workers to pay the portion of their dues that go toward causes or candidates to which they are politically or morally opposed. The answer to this question depends on if these individuals have joined the union. If they have joined the union, then they can be forced to pay the portion of their dues directed toward ideological purposes to which they may be opposed on either religious or political grounds. For example, members of a union can be forced to pay the increase in dues mentioned above regardless of whether or not they oppose how the increase in dues will be spent.

However, if these individuals have chosen not to become members of the union and they object to any portion of their dues being directed toward political or ideological purposes they oppose, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and two U.S. Supreme Court decisions require any amount of dues directed by the union toward such purposes to be either refunded or redirected toward a mutually selected charity (whether the funds are refunded or redirected depends upon the reason for the objection).

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects all unionized employees from being forced to support union-backed causes or candidates they believe are in opposition to their religious beliefs or their political views.

Private sector employees who have been required to pay union dues or an equivalent fee, as the Beck case referenced above clarified, have a right under the NLRA to object to the use of their dues for purposes other than collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment and to obtain a reduction of any portion of their compulsory payments that have been or would be used for union activities not involved in collective bargaining or union administration.

Public sector employees, including teachers, as the U.S. Supreme Court, in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), held cannot be required to pay more than an agency fee that equals their share of what the union can prove is its costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.

Safeguarding Non-Union Member Rights

Important safeguards exist under the law to ensure that the right to pay only an agency fee to the union.

In Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986), the US. Supreme Court held that the employer and the union must establish certain procedural safeguards to ensure individuals of the right to pay only an agency fee to the union. These safeguards include providing individuals the following: 1) Audited financial information about how the amount of the agency fee was calculated; 2) An opportunity to challenge the amount of the agency fee before an impartial decision maker and to make the union prove its fee claim; and 3) The right to place the contested amount of the agency fee in escrow so that the union will not be able to illegally use the money while a decision on the proper amount of the agency fee is pending.

The United States Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit, in Abrams v. Communications Workers, 59 F.3d 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1995), held that private sector unions under the NLRA also must comply with the procedural requirements imposed on public employee unions in the Hudson case referenced above. However, it should be noted that not all of the requirements of Hudson apply under the NLRA.

Preventing Use of a Union Member’s Dues

As mentioned above, federal law protects all unionized employees from being forced to support causes or candidates they believe are in opposition to their religious beliefs or political views.

Employees who are represented by a union and who object to any portion of their dues being directed toward candidate or issues to which they are opposed can prevent the union from doing so by simply informing the union of their objection. The objection can be for either religious or political reasons. These two types of objections require a different level of accommodation from the union. In both cases, individuals will no longer be considered members of the union. As such, they will lose any benefits provided by the union (shucks, no more discount tickets to Disneyland!) other than those benefits derived from collective bargaining.

Religious objectors can have the entire amount of their union dues redirected to certain types of charities specified under the law by sending a letter to the union asking that the funds be diverted to a mutually agreeable 501(c)(3). Political objectors can have the portion of their dues that is directed toward supporting lobbying or political activities refunded to them by sending a letter notifying the union of their objection and requesting a refund. In either case, an objector should check with the union to see if it has an objection policy before beginning the objection process.

To find out more information on this topic and for sample objection letters, click on the title and you'll be directed to Pacific Justice Institute.

Remember ... VOTE YES!

Proposition 75 - Paycheck Protection Initiative!

How Public Schools Have Changed

2005-08-18T07:05:00.000-07:00

by Phyllis Schlafly

Parents are on the warpath about the way 63,000 public schools are now starting their fall term in August, some even in hot July. Thousands of parents have organized Save Our Summers campaigns, and protests in Georgia, North Carolina, Texas and Florida have hit the national media.

I wish them well with their demands for schools to return to their traditional post-Labor Day opening. But I also wish those parents would show as much concern about what is being taught in the classroom.

The largest teachers union, the National Education Association, held its annual convention this summer in Los Angeles displaying its usual favoritism toward gays and feminists, hostility to parents, and support of liberal causes.

Badges worn by delegates included messages bashing President Bush and supporting gays and lesbians. There is a Conservative Educators Caucus within the NEA membership, but all its proposals were buried in committee except one on academic freedom, which delegates voted to send back to committee without allowing floor debate.

The NEA convention handed a big victory to its large Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus by easily passing its proposal calling on the NEA to "develop a comprehensive strategy" to deal with the attacks on gay curricula, policies and practices by what the NEA calls "extremist groups" (that's the NEA's term for parents). A delegate who asked for respect for ex-gays was loudly booed, while delegates cheered the speaker who pronounced that there is no such person as an ex-gay.

Resolutions passed by the NEA convention that have nothing to do with education included a call to boycott Wal-Mart, statehood for the District of Columbia, affirmative action, opposition to private accounts in Social Security, opposition to capital punishment, gun control, "single-payer health care" (i.e., government medicine), and endorsement of the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights.

NEA resolutions pertaining to education called for the teaching of global, multicultural, suicide, environmental and bilingual education. Somehow, resolutions about the need for improvement in the teaching of phonics or basic math didn't make the cut.

NEA resolutions endorsed all feminist goals, including abortion, comparable worth, the Equal Rights Amendment and taking over the baby-sitting of children "from birth through age 8." The gay lobby's influence extends even over these infants, whom the NEA wants to provide with "diversity-based curricula" and "bias-free screening devices."

In another manifestation of hypocrisy about educational diversity, the NEA resolved that "home-schooled students should not participate in any extracurricular activities in the public schools." At the same time, the NEA demands that home-schooled students should be taught only by people who are "licensed" by the state and use a curriculum approved by the state.

About one-third of NEA members are estimated to vote Republican, and there is a Republican Caucus within the NEA. However, the powers-that-be running the NEA launched a coup this year and took it over (so that "Republican" NEAers will be able to bash Bush), after which three-fourths of the real Republicans quit and joined the Conservative Educators Caucus.

One of my readers recently sent me a book published by the NEA in 1951. It provides a look down memory lane of what public schools used to be a half-century ago.

Called "The American Citizens Handbook," this nearly-600-page book was intended to promote good citizenship among public school students. It includes essays on citizenship, brief biographies of "heroes and heroines of American democracy," and reprints of historical documents that are the "great charters of American democracy."The book unabashedly celebrates old-fashioned virtue and patriotism. One section entitled "A Golden Treasury for the Citizen" offers passages suitable for memorization by children.

This NEA civics handbook embraces "the creation of national unity" and "Americanization" as explicit tasks for the public schools. The book states, "It is important that people who are to live and work together shall have a common mind - a like heritage of purpose, religious ideals, love of country, beauty, and wisdom to guide and inspire them."

Numerous Old and New Testament selections are included, including the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer. The golden rule, the Boy Scouts oath, national songs and uplifting poems appear along with geography facts and a household budget.

"The American Citizens Handbook" is a stunning contrast to the radical resolutions adopted by the NEA at its convention this year.

In one comical action by the 2005 NEA convention, the delegates defeated New Business Item No. 1 calling for conducting a "survey of members and potential members to determine the extent which NEA resolutions affect membership."

Apparently, NEA members don't want to know how hurtful these radical resolutions are to their own membership. It's no wonder that NEA membership is not increasing.

OUR NATION'S GODLY HERITAGE--BULLETPROOF GEORGE WASHINGTON

2005-08-14T13:12:00.000-07:00

This portrait shows a young George Washington in his "Redcoat" uniform--worn during the French and Indian War. Image courtesy of the Library of Congress.
The Father of our country experienced a miracle early in his military career. This account is widely known and was included in most school history textbooks, until recent changes caused it to be deleted from many books.
During the French and Indian war at the Battle of the Monongahela, young Colonel Washington was engaged in a fierce skirmish with the Indians. An easy target in his bold red coat, he crisscrossed the battlefield carrying General Braddock's orders to the troops. The Indian warriors later acknowledged that they were targeting all officers--and particularly Washington--in the bright garb. Yet Washington survived. There were eighty-six British and American officers involved in the battle; sixty-three of them died. Colonel Washington was the only officer on horseback who was not killed, and later, the Indians testified that they repeatedly shot at him, and were surprised that he never fell. They believed he was protected by an invisible power and that no bullet, bayonet, arrow or tomahawk could harm him.

Years later, the Indian chief sought Washington out in order to tell him what had happened in the battle. The Chief said, "I am a chief and ruler over my tribes. I have traveled a long and weary path that I might see the young warrior of the great battle. [On that day] I called to my men and said, 'Quick, let your aim be certain, and he dies.' Our rifles were leveled, rifles which, but for you, knew not how to miss--'twas all in vain, a power mightier far than we, shielded you…I am come to pay homage to the man who is the particular favorite of Heaven, and who can never die in battle."
Washington himself later wrote to his brother John, "By the all-powerful dispensations of Providence, I have been protected beyond all human probability or expectation; for I had four bullets through my coat, and two horses shot under me, yet escaped unhurt, although death was leveling my companions on every side of me!

Proposition 75 - “Paycheck Protection”

2005-08-13T19:57:00.000-07:00

You may not be a public employee, but you should care that the unions are taking the dues of hard working public employees and contributing to political activities that go against the principles of many who oppose the left's agenda and would rather not have their money used for that purpose. On November 8, 2005, California voters will have an opportunity to vote on a proposition that will require the union get public employees’ permission to use that portion of the dues that go to support anti-family legislators and their anti-family, anti-Christian agenda. Statistics prove that just the California Teachers’ Association spends approximately 95% of their PAC fighting Republicans. Most recently, the Service Employees International Union board of directors voted to increase member dues, without the vote of the members? Union thugs did the same to the members of the Correctional Peace Officers Association the California Teachers Association.

Did you know… 40% of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) members disagreed with the recent increase in dues and the 335,000 members of the California Teacher’s Association didn't even get a chance to vote on their dues increase.

Why don’t they want their members to express their right to vote? Public employees are forced to become members or “fair share” members, it’s the least they can do. But, the Unions know their membership would vote against dues increases. They also know when Proposition 75 passes, it will deal them a devastating blow. Little by little they will become insignificant.

But why wait? Right now all public employees who have a deeply religious objection to how that portion of their union dues go to support political agenda can redirect their union dues. To find out how you can take immediate steps to have your union dues redirected back to you, or to a charity of your choice, click on the title and you will be directed to Pacific Justice Institute's website. It's that easy.

I toss out a challenge my Judeo-Christian public employee friends, you know who you are, and redirect your union dues today. You will have the satisfaction of knowing that your money is being used the way you want … after all, IT IS YOUR MONEY!

IT'S A GREAT DAY FOR CALIFORNIA VOTERS!

2005-08-13T18:43:00.000-07:00

On Friday, August 12, 2005, the California Supreme Court ruled Proposition 77, the Redistrict Initiative, will be on the November 8th ballot! This ruling will allow the people to vote to change the way legislative districts are drawn, and make legislative districts more competitive and give the people a chance to elect our representatives so they are more accountable to those electing them into office. The 4-2 decision overturns a state appellate court ruling that removed the measure because of a wording dispute. The court's majority wrote, "We conclude that it would not be appropriate to deny the electorate the opportunity to vote on Proposition 77 at the special election to be held on November 8, 2005, on the basis of such discrepancies."

The decision is a victory for all of us who are tired of gerrymandered districts. Finally, the people of California will have an opportunity to vote on Proposition 77 and let our voices be heard!

YOUR VOTE WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

GET OUT AND VOTE ON NOVEMBER 8TH!

OUR CHRISTIAN ROLE IN PUBLIC POLICY

2005-08-13T17:56:00.000-07:00

Kudos to Mrs. Bobbie Patray, Eagle Forum
of Tennessee’s President for her interview on June 28, 2005 on the “Hardball with Chris Matthews” show. Mrs. Patray was among other conservative guests such as Chief Justice Roy Moore, Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins and others from the religious community.
The show was broadcast from Nashville, TN at
the Two Rivers Baptist Church, and the topic was the Christian’s role in public
policy. We cannot deny our role, for the three branches of government were ordained by God in Isaiah 33:22. And, God specifically directs God's children to elect God-fearing leaders, Deuteronomy 16:18. With that, our responsibility is to be obedient and follow God’s ways, for they are good. Mrs. Patray’s response to Chris Matthews was right on. She said it best ..."our laws are based on a Judeo-Christian foundation. ... they don‘t want to have to check their Christianity at the door went they go into the marketplace and into politics."

Click on the title and read the entire interview

Read the excerpts from her interview:
*******************************
BOBBIE PATRAY,
PRESIDENT, TENNESSEE EAGLE FORUM
MATTHEWS: Bobbie, what did you think of that
decision of the court? In Texas, they said it was all right as long as it was outside, it had no religious intent and had been there a long time. And in terms of the Ten Commandments appearing inside the courtroom in Kentucky, they said, no way. What did you think?
PATRAY: Welcome to Nashville, Chris.
MATTHEWS: Thank you, Bobbie.
PATRAY: I thought it was very schizophrenic. And—I mean,
what can I say? The Ten Commandments are the Ten Commandments. And they‘re the basis for our law in our country and played a huge role in the founding documents and the way that the founders thought about our country. And to say that you can just sort of bless them in one way and say they‘re OK and then, in another setting, they‘re not OK, they are what they are.
MATTHEWS: What would you think of a big Buddha in some courtroom? Would that be all right with you?
PATRAY: That‘s not...
MATTHEWS: I mean, that is it, just a big Buddha.
PATRAY: No. That‘s not what our law—that‘s not what our country is founded on.
MATTHEWS: Well, what‘s our country founded on?
PATRAY: Judeo-Christian principles.
MATTHEWS: OK. So, you believe that the government should be biased toward the Ten Commandments, as opposed to some other religious icon?
PATRAY: I don‘t know that it is being biased to...
MATTHEWS: Well, preferential to it.
PATRAY: But...
MATTHEWS: Right?
PATRAY: Our founders were preferential to that. And—and in answer to your question a while ago about the effect that it has, evangelical Christians and other people of Christian faiths, regardless of their faith, they don‘t want to be ghettoized and they don‘t want to have to check their Christianity at the door went they go into the marketplace and into politics.
MATTHEWS: Do you think we should have public... prayer? In the old days, when I was—people my age were growing up, people in public school would be able to read something from the King James version in school during the day. It didn‘t seem to offend many people. Do you think that‘s OK?
PATRAY: I don‘t think you can keep prayer out of school.
MATTHEWS: No, no, a formal time when you read from the Bible.
PATRAY: I think probably, in today‘s culture, that—we‘ll not ever see those days again. But people are going to pray in school. They‘re
going to pray anywhere they can. That‘s the one thing about God. You can pray to him anywhere.
MATTHEWS: I have got to give you a cutting-edge question, Reverend Sutton, Dr. Sutton. Do you think we should ever—should—normative question—should we ever try to bring back those days in the 1950s when a kid—hey, Joe, read something from the Bible. Read chapter
whatever. And he stood up and read something from the Bible, the King James version. Most people are Protestant. Do you think that day should come back again?
SUTTON: I don‘t think those days will ever come back again.
**********************************
CHRIS MATHEWS’ FINAL WORDS REGARDING THE SHOW
MATTHEWS: It‘s been a great evening of discussion, very civilized.
And I have to tell you, what happened here tonight is a replica of what‘s going on in American life today, the proper role of religion. It is certainly true that most Americans, I would say 90 percent say in God we trust. They say one nation under God. They‘re very comfortable with the role of God generally speaking. Where the debate begins is when it becomes a question of affiliation against an affiliation, the King James version or the Douay Rheims version, the Roman Catholic version, or whether Christian and Jew can sit down and say the same prayer or prayers can be said that don‘t offend one group or another. All I can tell you, I was in Queens, New York, the other day. And I saw Billy Graham unite everybody. And it still works.
***********************************
AMEN, CHRIS! BUT IT’S MORE THAN JUST UNITING EVERYONE. IT’S ABOUT THE GIFT OF HIS SAVING GRACE, MERCY AND FORGIVENESS ... ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS ACCEPT HIS GIFT, ADMIT YOUR SINS AND REPENT ... HE IS A LOVING AND FAITHFUL GOD.

The Ways Gay Marriage Undercuts Human Rights

2005-08-08T03:09:00.000-07:00

By Tim Leslie
Special To The Bee
Sunday, August 7, 2005
Although gay marriage proponents saw their AB 19 decisively voted down this summer in California's Assembly, they have used a rule-bending shortcut to advance their bill to the Senate anyway as AB 849. While technically legal, the maneuver flouts the legislative process. More significantly, it highlights a central tenet of the effort to redefine marriage: Discard any rule, authority or standard that does not give gay marriage proponents what they want.
Those advocating gay marriage often do so with good intentions, believing they are championing human rights. Unfortunately, their efforts push in the opposite direction. By discarding the foundations of human rights, gay marriage proponents ultimately work against those rights.
In California, redefining marriage requires tossing the vote of the people. Sixty percent of Californians voted in 2000 to protect marriage through Proposition 22. Legislators may pretend Proposition 22 meant something else, but to an honest observer the drive toward gay marriage shows disdain for the people's authority.
Likewise, gay marriage proponents must discard Judaism, Christianity and every other major religion's teaching on the topic. No doubt, some clerics willingly twist the clear teaching of their faiths. But as the vast majority of religious leaders confirm, redefining marriage would set aside millenniums of clear moral instruction.
Redefining marriage also demands dispensing with virtually every culture's historic standard of marriage. Certainly, history has seen aberrations of marriage. But the overwhelming consensus always has been toward marriage as a lifelong relationship between a man and a woman, one capable of producing and nurturing children.
In addition, redefining marriage means overlooking the vital complementary qualities of male and female in anatomy, psychology and childrearing. Of course, traditional marriages often fall short of what they should be. But even a simple understanding of sexual anatomy or the importance of both fathers and mothers for children demonstrates how gay marriage discards the beauty of human design.
Finally, redefining marriage requires ignoring the law written on every human's conscience. Many would disagree, of course, and I respect their right to do so. But regardless of how Hollywood and others try to reshape our moral values, gay marriage discounts what we know to be right in our heart of hearts.
As in all of life, discarding fundamental principles carries consequences. In dialoguing with gay marriage proponents I often ask, "After allowing gay marriage, on what basis would you draw the line against polygamy between consenting adults?" I have yet to hear a real answer. There simply isn't one.
Some gay marriage proponents understand this. Homosexual activist and writer Michelangelo Signorile describes the goal in the December-January 1994 Out Magazine as "to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution that as it now stands keeps us down."
Yet here is a disastrous catch for those who imagine they advance human rights by redefining marriage: What standards remain once you've discarded democratic rule, transcendent truths, historic cultural standards, human design and even honesty with one's own conscience? The only authority remaining rests on the whims of those in power.
Today in California, gay-friendly judges and legislators hold that power, and their whims could usher in a brave new world. But as the 20th century bears terrible witness, the whims of the powerful are no safeguard for human rights. If nothing stands higher than power - standards that judge its exercise and set its boundaries - we live in a world where might makes right. That is a dangerous realm to inhabit, especially for groups that have known oppression.
Opponents of gay marriage must unswervingly protect the human rights of all people, regardless of their lifestyle choices. For the sake of these rights, we must also stand firm in defending the bedrock standards that serve as their foundation.

GET OUT THERE AND LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!

2005-08-05T06:13:00.000-07:00

Initiative matters

SACRAMENTO – Although Proposition 77’s spot on the special-election ballot is tenuous, if it survives a court challenge there will be eight measures on the Nov. 8 ballot; otherwise, there will be seven measures. The Legislature still has time to add its own additional measures.

Proposition 73 would require parental notification for a minor seeking an abortion – unless there is a medical emergency or judicial waiver.

Proposition 74 would extend the probationary period for new teachers from the current two years to five years and would permit school districts to dismiss teachers who receive two consecutive “unsatisfactory” annual evaluations. Proposition 74 is one of three measures endorsed by the governor.

Proposition 75 – Unions may use dues for political purposes. Current law allows those who object to union political activities on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs to divert their dues to charity; however, many union members unwittingly finance political campaigns contrary to their own beliefs. Proposition 75 would require public-employee unions to get annual, written consent from members to use dues or fees for political purposes.

Proposition 76 – Perhaps the centerpiece of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s three “reform” initiatives, Proposition 76 would address underlying problems in the state’s budget process. Among other reforms, it would impose spending limits and allow for midyear corrections. Under Proposition 76, if a budget falls out of balance, the governor may proclaim a fiscal emergency. If the Legislature fails to solve the budget imbalance within 45 days, the governor could then unilaterally make adjustments to eliminate the shortfall.

Proposition 77 – The third measure endorsed by the governor, the redistricting measure, has been plagued by legal challenges. Although a lower court removed it from the ballot, an appeals court gave it a temporary reprieve; this move allows the measure to be publicly reviewed, but the court must still decide if Prop 77 will appear on the fall ballot. Proposition 77 would allow a three-member panel of retired judges to redraw election districts. This process of redrawing district lines, known as “redistricting,” happens every ten years. The current system, in which legislators draw their own district lines, results in boundaries favorable to those in office.

Proposition 78 and Proposition 79 are competing drug measures. Both would develop programs for prescription discounts. Proposition 78 (CalRx), sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry, would be a voluntary program in which drug companies discount drugs to poor Californians. A family of four making less than $56,500 or 300 percent of the federal poverty level would be eligible. Prop 79 would allow those who earn less than 400 percent of the poverty level ($75,000 for a family of four) to join a new state program providing access to cheaper drugs. Those pharmaceutical companies who failed to comply with this new “mandatory” program would be excluded from lucrative Medi-Cal contracts.

Proposition 80 would re-regulate electricity in California – largely undoing the deregulation of the 1990’s. Based on a bill vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger last year, Proposition 80 would place all electricity providers under the control of the Public Utilities Commission, require increased renewable energy procurement, and restrict the ability of customers to change providers.

It's Time to Protect Marriage, Folks!

Further evidence that the courts continue to legislate from the bench, on Monday the California Supreme Court ruled 6-0 that domestic partners had to be given the same benefits as a married couple. The case stemmed from a lesbian who sued the Bernardo Heights Country Club because her partner was considered a fee-paying “guest’” with limited privileges, but the families of other members played golf for free. The court ruled that “a business that extends benefits to spouses it denies to registered domestic partners engages in impermissible marital status discrimination.” Justice Moreno also wrote that, in creating legal domestic partnerships, the “Legislature has granted legal recognition comparable to marriage” (emphasis added) to domestic partners. As courts continue to chip away at the rights and privileges accorded to married couples, blurring the lines between traditional families and “homosexual couples,” it is more important than ever to protect marriage as only between one man and one woman.

Proposition 22, passed by Californians in 2000, placed marriage protections into statutory law – the California Family Code. As the courts and the Legislature continue to erode the definition of marriage, it is important to place protections into the California Constitution.

Voter Intimidation & Suppression Introduction

2005-08-04T12:29:00.000-07:00

Mr. Thor Hurn director for the American Center for Voting Rights (ACVR), a non-partisan group, researched the issue of voter fraud during the 2004 election. Amazingly, their report shows tremendous examples of voter fraud and intimidation by the Democrat party. Where is the media on this issue? Pretty much non-existent. But am I surprised? Not really. However, had the outcome of voter fraud been on the part of the Republican party, you can bet this would be front page news. Thank God it was the will of the people that elected George W. Bush ... and not John "Fraud" Kerry as our President.
**********************************
AMERICAN CENTER FOR VOTING RIGHTS -

Allegations of voter intimidation and suppression have been leveled by both political parties and across the political spectrum. This section of the report details the most serious of the allegations, notes the factual basis for the charges and what actions, if any, were taken by the responsible party, law enforcement or the courts. While some reference to past incidents and allegations are made in order to provide context to the study, this report focuses exclusively on the 2004 presidential election and assesses each allegation equally without regard to the political party against which the charge was made.

Democrats have traditionally alleged that Republicans engage in voter intimidation and voter suppression campaigns targeting minority communities. The 2004 presidential campaign was marked by aggressive, repeated and coordinated charges by Democrats that the GOP was engaged in a massive campaign to intimidate and harass minority voters, effectively keeping them away from the polls. These charges did not end on Election Day. After the election, in April 2005, Senator Kerry charged that “too many people were denied their right to vote, too many who tried to vote were intimidated.” (2) In June 2005, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said “the Republicans are all about suppressing votes.” (3)
The following section addresses allegations of voter intimidation and suppression leveled by both parties in the 2004 election.

Allegations of voter intimidation and suppression have been leveled by both political parties and across the political spectrum. This section of the report details the most serious of the allegations, notes the factual basis for the charges and what actions, if any, were taken by the responsible party, law enforcement or the courts. While some reference to past incidents and allegations are made in order to provide context to the study, this report focuses exclusively on the 2004 presidential election and assesses each allegation equally without regard to the political party against which the charge was made.

Democrats have traditionally alleged that Republicans engage in voter intimidation and voter suppression campaigns targeting minority communities. The 2004 presidential campaign was marked by aggressive, repeated and coordinated charges by Democrats that the GOP was engaged in a massive campaign to intimidate and harass minority voters, effectively keeping them away from the polls. These charges did not end on Election Day. After the election, in April 2005, Senator Kerry charged that “too many people were denied their right to vote, too many who tried to vote were intimidated.” (2) In June 2005, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said “the Republicans are all about suppressing votes.” (3)

Click on the title link and visit the American Center for Voting Rights for the full reports.

What's Behind a Phone Call From Newt Gingrich?

2005-08-03T06:50:00.000-07:00

by Phyllis Schlafly, Aug. 3, 2005

I was sitting at my computer starting to write this week's column when I received a phone call asking me to listen to an important recorded message from our old friend Newt Gingrich. Expecting to get more information about his new alliance with Hillary Clinton to change health care as we know it, I stayed on the line.

But no, Newt was telling me about the danger from illegal aliens coming across our open borders. He talked about the threat this poses to our national security in an era of terrorism, the high costs to U.S. taxpayers, the follies of multiculturalism, and the urgent need for everyone in our country to be able to speak our English language.

The message was skillfully designed to appeal to Americans who are outraged at our government's failure to protect us from the invasion of illegals. But slyly buried in the middle of Newt's message was an endorsement of a "guest worker" plan to invite even more aliens to take U.S. jobs.

The politicians and business executives, who are determined to continue bringing in foreigners to work for lower wages than Americans expect, have gotten smart. The plan to import "willing workers" from other countries is now being packaged in the language of concern about border security.

This strategy is obvious in the new White House-backed coalition called Americans for Border and Economic Security, organized by Republican lobbyist (and former Republican National Committee Chairman) Ed Gillespie. Admission to this coalition costs $50,000 to $250,000, fees that will finance a political-style campaign to sell the American people on a guest-worker program wrapped in a few border-security measures.

This bait-and-switch maneuver is also the approach of the soon-to-be-introduced bill sponsored by Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and John Kyl (R-AZ). It's called the "Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act," and boy is it comprehensive; the advance summary runs a dozen pages of fine print.

The Cornyn-Kyl bill starts off with authorizing 10,000 more Border Patrol Agents. But more agents were congressionally authorized months ago and the Bush Administration refused to add them.

The Cornyn-Kyl bill increases criminal penalties for alien smuggling, document fraud, gang violence, and drug trafficking. But that only applies to criminals who are caught; our Border Patrol is catching less than half of the illegals coming over the border, and we inspect only a tiny percent of the Mexican trucks which NAFTA has forced us to allow on our highways.

What about the incredible costs to U.S. taxpayers of illegal aliens, such as health care at our hospitals, schooling for their children, subsidized housing, Earned Income Tax Credit subsidies, and in-state college tuition rates? The Cornyn-Kyl bill would deny taxpayer benefits only to aliens found to pose a threat to national security (not to those who threaten our pocketbooks).

The comprehensive Cornyn-Kyl bill contains dozens of excellent and necessary proposals that should have been ordered years ago, such as eliminating the Diversity Visa Program.

But buried in the middle of this vast bill is Title V, which creates a "Nonimmigrant Temporary Worker Category." That's the euphemism for giving amnesty to some ten million illegal aliens already in the United States, plus creating "guest worker" status for them and for millions more aliens who will be invited into our country to take U.S. jobs.

Amnesty means a general pardon for offenses against the government. The Cornyn-Kyl bill includes no punishment whatsoever for the crimes committed by illegal aliens, by makers and users of fraudulent documents, or by employers who hire the cheap labor.

The Cornyn-Kyl bill would establish a new visa category called "W" that would allow aliens to enter the United States "when there are no available U.S. workers." The bill would require employers to pay "W" aliens the minimum wage but not require the market wage.

In other words, Silicon Valley corporations could advertise in "America's Job Bank" for computer specialists at the U.S. minimum wage, no Americans would apply, and thousands of computer specialists from India and Pakistan would board planes to take the jobs for which, allegedly, "there are no available U.S. workers."

The "W" workers would be allowed to extend their time in the United States up to six years, during which period their family members may come and visit for 30 days at a time. The bill doesn't answer the question of what happens when the "W" worker is visited by his wife, and they have a baby who becomes an "anchor baby," i.e., a U.S. citizen, with all the rights and taxpayer benefits for the baby and all his relatives.

Amnesty, even under the label "guest worker," is highly offensive to the American people. It cannot be made palatable by hiding it in a bill that pretends to be about "enforcement" or "reform" of border security.

Pro-Aborts Complain Pro-Life and Pro-Family Attitudes on the Rise in Europe

2005-07-31T05:43:00.000-07:00

LODZ, July 29, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Grassroots opposition to anti-life policies is on the rise, according to a number of European abortion-supportive organizations. Alarm at the soaring abortion and plummeting birth rates in their home countries has inspired Europeans to re-consider the leftist-inspired orthodoxies of population control and abortion-on-demand.
In 1962, at the height of communist rule in Poland, the number of abortions reached an all-time high of 199,400. The numbers slowly fell to 137,950 in 1980 at the time of the Gdansk shipyard strike that brought down communist rule and continued to plummet thereafter.
The number of abortions took a dramatic jump in 1996/97 going from 505 to 3171 when the abortion lobby succeeded in briefly liberalizing the law to allow abortion until the 12th week of pregnancy if “a woman is in hard life conditions or in difficult personal situation.” The law was restricted again in 1997 and the number immediately dropped to 312 and fell to 123 in 2001, but has been slowly creeping up since then.
Since the official fall of communism in Eastern and Central Europe, Poland, as with most of the world’s last few Catholic countries, has been the target of a concerted effort by various international abortion promoting organizations.
Both international and home-grown European pro-life groups are fighting back with strong pro-life campaigns including the Genocide Awareness Project. The GAP and similar campaigns juxtapose large photographic images of aborted children with pictures of Holocaust and other genocide victims to establish a simple and direct correlation in the mind of the observer.
The appearance of the GAP style display for most of July in the Polish city of Lodz is part of a growing effort to fight back for the lives of Europe’s children and its demographic future. The pictures in the Lodz display are geared towards a European audience with the aborted children depicted next to photos of victims of genocide in Bosnian or Rwandan genocides. The traveling exhibition has moved on to its next appearance in Lublin.
One pro-abortion writer in the International Herald Tribune complains of this growing ‘conservative’ movement in Europe. Elisabeth Rosenthal writes, “The movement has made powerful inroads in countries where a full array of women's health services were once taken for granted…including Poland, Italy, Slovakia, Lithuania and even the Netherlands.”
She cites pro-life Anna Zaborska of Slovakia, the new chairwoman of the European Parliament Committee for Women's Rights and Gender Equality, as an example of the ‘danger’ of pro-life sentiments growing in high places in Europe.
“It’s gotten worse in many places over the last two to three years, as more Christian Democrat and conservative governments have come to power,” said Rebecca Gomperts, founder of the Dutch abortion group Women on Waves, the same group that pilots its abortion ship to countries in which abortion is illegal.
Rosenthal quotes Joseph Meaney, international director of Human Life International, a Catholic anti-abortion group based in Virginia. “There are now a lot of pro-life groups working in Europe, but they are fairly young - formed in the last five or 10 years,” he said.
Rosenthal complains that the Catholic Church’s influence, far from dying out, is on the rise, especially with the young. Joseph Meany calls this the “John Paul II effect.” But Rosenthal chillingly reminds that there are only 4 countries left in Europe that have any legal restrictions on abortion - Ireland, Malta, Poland and Portugal. All of these, with the possible exception of Malta, are in immediate danger of caving to abortion lobby pressure and all are annually harassed by United Nations committees dedicated to universal abortion-on-demand.
Esmeralda Kuliesyte of Lithuania’s Family Planning and Sexual Health Association complained that the abstinence policies of the Bush administration are also having an effect.

Schumer Confesses to Not Understanding Constitution by Henry Mark Holzer

2005-07-31T05:31:00.000-07:00

United States Senator "Chuck" Schumer's broke his own stupidity record the other day following President Bush's announcement of John Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court.
In a tag-team appearance with Senator Pat Leahy (D. Vt.), ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, Schumer confessed to the Nation that neither he, Leahy, nor the Democrat party for whom he spoke, understands a fundamental principle of American constitutionalism: separation of powers. Indeed, ever since Schumer confessed, his echo has been heard as Democrat functionaries (e.g., Kennedy, Biden, Durbin, Pelosi) have made the same confession that they, too, do not understand one of the three basic pillars upon which our Republic stands.All of them, and for that matter most of the media, have been demanding that judicial nominee Roberts "answer questions." That Roberts explain his position on abortion, that he reveal where he stands on affirmative action, that he disclose how he would rule on capital punishment, that he divulge his stand on eminent domain--that, in effect, he make known the platform on which he is running for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States.From the perspective of the Democrats, this is entirely understandable, even defensible--because they do not understand Separation of Powers, and thus the Constitution's mandated role for a judge in the American system of government, believing instead that the judiciary is simply another political branch. The Democrats see judges--Warren, Brennan, Douglas, Blackmun, Stevens, Ginsburg--as legislators, promulgating from the bench their own social, economic, and even moral, programs,not interpreting the Constitution and laws passed by the politically accountable actual legislature, i.e., Congress.John Roberts is not a candidate for the Nowhereville Town Council, where the voters would want to know (and would have a right to know) where he stands on building a new senior citizen center, or whether Walmart can open a superstore. He is not even running for a senate seat in Vermont, where voters have questions about dairy subsidies, or in New York, where Long Islanders want to know about shore erosion. He is a nominee to a judgeship where his task is not to legislate (Article I of the Constitution), but rather to serve under Article III: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . . ." That "judicial power" is the power to interpret and apply the Constitution and laws promulgated not by judges, but by legislators.It is bad enough that the Democrats don't--or won't--understand this, but apparently they've succeeded in selling their bogus view of American constitutionalism to the American people. Last Friday, the Associated Press reported that "Just over half of all Americans--and a solid majority of women--want to know John Roberts' position on abortion . . . ." Not just the "pro-choice" side, but also those who oppose abortion.The fact is that no one is entitled to know what John Roberts thinks about abortion--or gay marriage, capital punishment, gun control, self-incrimination, free speech, warrantless searches, compulsory process, the commerce clause--or the price of tea in China. The Judiciary Committee and the full Senate are entitled to know from President Bush's nominee for an Associate Justiceship on the Supreme Court of the United States basically one thing: what does John Roberts believe is the constitutional function of courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular--and of the judges who sit on those courts.Until the Republicans extricate themselves from the judges-as-legislators mindset the Democrats have engineered--and in the process educate the American people about Separation of Powers, as the doctrine applies to John Roberts--they are playing the Democrats' game, and perhaps holding a losing hand.
Henry Mark Holzer (www.henrymarkholzer.com), Professor Emeritus at Brooklyn Law School, is an appellate lawyer who specializes in constitutional law. He is writing a book about the jurisprudence of Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.

The Slippery Slope of Same-Sex "Marriage" by Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D.

2005-07-30T17:59:00.000-07:00

A Man and His Horse
In what some call a denial of a basic civil right, a Missouri man has been told he may not marry his long-term companion. Although his situation is unique, the logic of his argument is remarkably similar to that employed by advocates of homosexual marriage.
The man claims that the essential elements of marriage--love and commitment--are indeed present: "She's gorgeous. She's sweet. She's loving. I'm very proud of her. ... Deep down, way down, I'd love to have children with her."1
Why is the state of Missouri, as well as the federal government, displaying such heartlessness in denying the holy bonds of wedlock to this man and his would-be "wife"?
It seems the state of Missouri is not prepared to indulge a man who waxes eloquent about his love for a 22-year-old mare named Pixel.

The Threat to Marriage
The Missouri man and homosexual "marriage" proponents categorically reject the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Instead, the sole criterion for marriage becomes the presence of "love" and "mutual commitment." But once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman, it is impossible to exclude virtually any relationship between two or more partners of either sex--even non-human "partners." To those who object to comparing gay marriage to widely-rejected sexual preferences, it should be pointed out that until very recent times the very suggestion that two men or two women could "marry" was itself greeted with scorn.
Of course, media stories on same-sex marriage rarely address the fact that redefining marriage logically leads to the Missouri man and his mare. Instead, media reports typically focus instead on homosexual couples who resemble the stereotypical ideal of a married couple. Ignored in such reports is social science research indicating that such idealized "families" are utterly atypical among homosexuals.
In this pamphlet we will show the following:
1. Gay marriage threatens the institutions of marriage and the family.
2. Same-sex relationships are not the equivalent of traditional marriage
3. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue
4. Americans overwhelmingly reject gay marriage
5. Gay marriage is not a moral alternative to traditional marriage.
6. Homosexuality is rightly viewed as unnatural.

The "Polyamory" Movement
"Sean has a wife. He also has a girlfriend. His girlfriend has another boyfriend. That boyfriend is dating Sean's wife."
description of "polyamory" relationship2
The movement to redefine marriage has found full expression in what is variously called "polyfidelity" or "polyamory," which seeks to replace traditional marriage with a bewildering array of sexual combinations between various groups of individuals.
"Polyamory" is derived from Greek and Latin roots, and is loosely translated "many loves." Polyamorists reject the "myth" of monogamy and claim to practice "harmonious love and intimacy between multiple poly partners."3 Stanley Kurtz describes the "bewildering variety of sexual combinations. There are triads of one woman and two men; heterosexual group marriages; groups in which some or all members are bisexual; lesbian groups, and so forth."4
The polyamory movement took its inspiration from Robert Heinlein's 1961 sci-fi novel, Stranger in a Strange Land, in which sexual possessiveness (as in marital exclusivity) is portrayed as an evil leading to societal ills such as murder and war. The book helped spawn a number of ill-fated sexual communes, such as San Francisco's Kerista community, in which members had sexual relations with each other according to a rotating schedule.

Anti-Marriage Activists
The Kerista commune collapsed in 1992, but the polyamory movement has taken hold in academia where, according to First Things, its proponents "are now so influential, if not dominant, in the academic field of marriage and family law." Scholars enamored with polyamory argue in favor of "a social revolution that would replace traditional marriage and family law."5
Kurtz concurs that the "gradual transition from gay marriage to state-sanctioned polyamory, and the eventual abolition of marriage itself, is now the most influential paradigm within academic family law." One prominent advocate of polyamory, David Chambers, professor of law at the University of Michigan, argues: "By ceasing to conceive of marriage as a partnership composed of one person of each sex, the state may become more receptive to units of three or more."6

The Frat House Concept of "Family"
This radical definition of marriage gives rise to bizarre conceptions of family that include virtually any relationship or social group. In 1990, a San Francisco task force on family policy led by lesbian activist Roberta Achtenberg defined the family as a "unit of interdependent and interacting persons, related together over time by strong social and emotional bonds and/or by ties of marriage, birth, and adoption."7
The "frat house with revolving bedroom doors" concept of marriage and the family poses dangers to children.
Polyamory advocates pay scant attention to the dangers posed to children being raised according to this "frat house with revolving bedroom doors" concept of marriage and the family. Yet, this nebulous, free-for-all model of the family looms ahead for our society unless a bulwark is created in the form of a constitutional amendment protecting marriage.
The slippery slope leading to the destruction of marriage as we know it draws ever closer with the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to compel the state legislature to grant homosexual sex partners the legal status of married people. This decision has emboldened public officials in various localities to grant marriage licenses to homosexual couples, igniting a national debate on the question: What is marriage--and where do we draw the limits on who can marry?

Same-Sex Relationships are not the Equivalent of Marriage
A growing body of research indicates that in key respects homosexual and lesbian relationships are radically different than married couples.
-- Relationship duration: While a high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory. This has nothing to do with alleged "societal oppression." A study in the Netherlands, a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years.8
-- Monogamy versus promiscuity: Studies indicate that while three-quarters or more of married couples remain faithful to each other, homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity. The same Dutch study found that "committed" homosexual couples have an average of eight sexual partners (outside of the relationship) per year.9
-- Intimate partner violence: homosexual and lesbian couples experience by far the highest levels of intimate partner violence compared with married couples as well as cohabiting heterosexual couples.10 Lesbians, for example, suffer a much higher level of violence than do married women.11

What about the Children?
In his exhaustive examination of human history, Giovanni Battista Vico (1668-1744), Professor of Rhetoric at the University of Naples, concluded that marriage between a man and a woman is an essential characteristic of civilization, and as such is the "seedbed" of society. Vico warned that chaos would ensue in the absence of strong social norms encouraging marital faithfulness and the loving care of children born to the union.
Since reproduction requires a male and a female, society will always depend upon heterosexual marriage to provide the "seedbed" of future generations. The evidence indicates that homosexual or lesbian households are not a suitable environment for children.
Data from the 2000 U.S. Census and other sources indicates that only a small percentage of homosexual households choose to raise children.12 One reason for this is that the raising of children is inimical to the typical homosexual lifestyle, which as we have seen typically involves a revolving bedroom door. With the added problem of high rates of intimate partner violence, such households constitute a dangerous and unstable environment for children.
Homosexuals and lesbians are unsuitable role models for children because of their lifestyle. Dr. Brad Hayton observes that homosexual households "model a poor view of marriage to children. They are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. ... And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good 'marital' relationship."13

The Phony Comparison with Race
Many black Americans are understandably offended when gay activists, who have never been relegated to the back of a bus, equate their agenda with racial discrimination. In a statement supporting traditional marriage, several black pastors wrote:"We find the gay community's attempt to tie their pursuit of special rights based on their behavior to the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s abhorrent."14
A majority of Black Americans reject the facile comparison of sexual behavior with an immutable characteristic such as race, and disagree with the oft-heard contention by gay activists that homosexuals are "born that way." A Pew Research poll found that by an overwhelming 61 to 26 percent margin, Black Protestants believe sexual orientation can be changed.15 The same poll reported that Black Americans oppose homosexual marriage by a 60 to 28 percent margin.16

Gay Marriage is not a Civil Rights Issue
Defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would not deny homosexuals the basic civil rights accorded other citizens. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or in any legislation proceeding from it are homosexuals excluded from the rights enjoyed by all citizens--including the right to marry.
However, no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whoever they want. A parent cannot marry their child (even if he or she is of age), two or more spouses, or the husband or wife of another person. Such restrictions are based upon the accumulated wisdom not only of Western civilization but also of societies and cultures around the world for millennia.
Neither can gay activists appeal to a "natural rights" argument: i.e., no reasonable person would deny homosexuals and lesbians their self-evident right to marry. Harry Jaffa cogently replies that such arguments actually argue against homosexual marriage: "Nature and reason tell us that a Negro is a human being, and is not to be treated like a horse or an ox or a dog, just as they tell us that a Jew is a human being, and is not to be treated as a plague-bearing bacillus. But with the very same voice, nature and reason tell us that a man is not a woman, and that sexual friendship is properly between members of opposite-sexes, not the same sex."17

Upholding Traditional Marriage is not "Discrimination"
Discrimination occurs when someone is unjustly denied some benefit or opportunity. But it must first be demonstrated that such persons deserve to be treated equally. For example, FAA and airline regulations rightly discriminate regarding who is allowed into the cockpit of an airline. Those who are not trained pilots have no rightful claim to "discrimination" because they are not allowed to fly an airplane.
On the other hand, discrimination would occur if properly credentialed pilots are refused hiring simply because of the color of their skin. In this case such individuals have been denied employment simply because of their race.
The issue of alleged discrimination was addressed by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson, when it rejected the argument that denying a same-sex couple the right to marry was the equivalent of racial discrimination. The court found: "In common sense and constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."
Similarly, in October 2003, a three-judge panel of the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled unanimously against two homosexuals who argued in a lawsuit that marriage is a fundamental right, and that prohibiting it for same-sex couples violates constitutional protections for due process. The court found that the state's ban on homosexual marriage "rationally furthers a legitimate state interest," and thus does not discriminate against homosexuals by depriving them of their constitutional rights.18 The court further noted: "Recognizing a right to marry someone of the same sex would not expand the established right to marry, but would redefine the legal meaning of 'marriage.'"
When gay activists and their supporters cry "discrimination!" they conveniently avoid the question of whether homosexual relationships merit being granted equality with marriage. Yet this question deserves our close examination, for the danger posed to our society by redefining marriage is no less than permitting unqualified individuals to fly airplanes.

Americans Reject Gay Marriage
Typical of polls on the subject, a Fox News poll conducted after the Massachusetts ruling found that Americans oppose same-sex marriage by an overwhelming 66 to 25 percent margin.19
A majority of Americans also support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll in August 2003 reported that 58 percent of respondents favored amending the Constitution, with 34 percent opposed.20 A Zogby poll released in February 2004 found that, by a 51 to 43 percent margin, voters agreed that a constitutional amendment should be passed limiting marriage to a man and a woman.21 Similarly, a February 2004 Gallup poll found that 53 percent of respondents favored a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, with 44 percent opposed.22
Homosexual marriage is a potent political issue, with opponents ever more dedicated to preserving the traditional definition of marriage. A follow-up Pew Research poll conducted in February 2004 found: "Gay marriage has surpassed other major social issues like abortion and gun control in its influence on voters. Four in ten voters say they would not vote for a candidate who disagrees with them on gay marriage, even if they agree with the candidate on most other issues." The poll reported that "voters oppose gay marriage by more than two to one (65 percent to 28 percent), a margin that has remained generally steady since October."23

Polls Cite Moral Objections to Homosexuality
A Pew Research poll released in November 2003 reported: "The most common reasons given for objecting to gay and lesbian marriage are moral and religious. ... More than eight in ten opponents of gay marriage (82 percent) say it runs counter to their religious beliefs, with 73 percent completely agreeing with that sentiment." 24
The poll found that the top two reasons for opposing gay marriage are that "The Bible says it is morally wrong/a sin" (28 percent), followed by the response that homosexual marriage is "against my religious beliefs" (17 percent).25 Unexpressed religious beliefs are reflected in the next two largest categories of responses. Sixteen percent of respondents based their opposition to gay marriage on the fact that the "definition of marriage is a man and a woman," followed by "It's just wrong/I just don't agree with it" (12 percent).
A Barna Research poll, also released in November 2003, confirmed that Americans consider homosexual behavior to be morally objectionable. Only 30 percent of respondents agreed that "having a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex" was morally acceptable. By comparison, the respondents considered "getting drunk" (35 percent), "using profanity" (36 percent), sex outside of marriage (42 percent), cohabitation (60 percent), and gambling (61 percent) all to be more acceptable than homosexuality.26
It is outside the scope of this pamphlet to discuss the biblical and theological understanding regarding homosexual behavior. See the FRC booklet "Keeping the Churches Marriage Friendly: How the Bible and Tradition Refute the 'Gay Theology' (available at www.frc.org or by calling 1-800-225-4008 ).

The Validity of Moral Arguments
The oft-repeated mantra "you can't legislate morality"--the contention that moral arguments have no place in formulating public policy--is absurd. It is the duty of legislators to evaluate the right legislation needed to correct some wrong or injustice, or promote some positive or good result. Many of the same people who wish to exclude religiously informed moral arguments from the debate about marriage are little troubled by the use of moral and religious arguments when discussing other issues such as racial discrimination, capital punishment, or the war in Iraq.
The conviction that human sexuality is rightfully expressed within marriage between a man and a woman is deeply rooted in our history and Judeo-Christian beliefs. Over a century ago, In Maynard v. Hill (1888), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the understanding of marriage springs from the fundamental morality of a people. The Court described marriage as "creating the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution."
Similarly, in Baker v. Nelson (1971), the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the Judeo-Christian roots of the definition of marriage: "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis."

Homosexuality is Unnatural
The advocates of anti-marriage and anti-family sexuality face yet another foe: divinely created nature itself. According to the above-mentioned Pew Poll, the next most frequent reason given for opposing gay marriage is that "homosexuality is not natural/normal" (9 percent). This response is followed by "the purpose of marriage is to have children" (4 percent), which also recognizes a purposeful--and thus "natural"--design for human sexuality.
In his epistle to Christians living in Rome, the Apostle Paul speaks of an undeniable "law" regarding normative human behavior that is written on the hearts of mankind "to which their own conscience also bears witness." Those who would reject this law find themselves in opposition to the Divine intent for mankind, a reality that every culture from the dawn of civilization has either recognized--or failed to acknowledge at its peril.
The power of the innate realization that there is something fundamentally "unnatural" about homosexuality--even among those who consider themselves non-religious--should not be underestimated, and may well provide the vital motivation that will turn back the seemingly invincible juggernaut of the gay agenda.

The Gay Agenda vs. Nature
In their 1989 book, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s, homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen presented a strategy for achieving the full acceptance of homosexuality in American culture. Kirk and Madsen write: "In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector."
That this strategy has met with considerable success is undeniable. But wait! The subtitle of Kirk and Madsen's book reveals the confident presumption that America would conquer its (purported) fear and hatred of gays in the '90s.
Yet America did not, as expected, embrace the homosexual agenda with open arms. When queried regarding homosexuality as a behavioral lifestyle--as opposed to a civil rights issue--many Americans continue to register strong negative reactions.
A Public Perspectives survey found that 69 percent of those surveyed report being "very much" or "somewhat" bothered by seeing a person "kissing someone of the same sex in public."27 This hesitancy is not limited to those holding to traditional morality. No less than the liberal icon Glamour magazine reported the results of a readership poll in which 59 percent of the respondents were "put off" by a lesbian kiss shown on network television.28
This "ick factor," far from irrational, is rooted in the subconscious realization of what is normal and what is not, and which forms an inescapable part of our being. And it may be that by underestimating the power of this innate understanding, gay activists have made their greatest tactical error.

A Coming Spiritual Revival?
Camille Paglia, a self-confessed radical lesbian and atheist feminist, addresses this fundamental miscalculation of gay activism, which, "encouraged by the scientific illiteracy of academic postmodernism, wants to deny that there is a heterosexual norm. This is madness." Paglia warns that eventually "the insulting disrespect shown by gay activists to religion ... would produce a backlash."29
Paglia notes:"History shows that massive spiritual revivals are a fundamental, recurrent element in culture." She further warns that "there may unfortunately be deep, slow-moving forces at work like those that led to Christianity's triumph over cosmopolitan, sexually permissive, but ethically weak late-paganism during the Roman Empire."30

Gay Marriage: A No Show in History
Some scholars claim that marriage between homosexuals has been commonly practiced and accepted by various peoples throughout history. One prominent advocate of this view, William Eskridge, contends that same-sex unions and even "marriages" have been common in other times and cultures.
Responding to Eskridge, professors Peter Lubin and Dwight Duncan point out that the so-called "evidence" for homosexual marriage comes primarily from small, isolated pre-literate tribes. Lubin and Duncan point out that "a great many of the primitive societies deemed by Eskridge to be tolerant of [same-sex marriage] ... have also been known to engage in other practices, such as cannibalism, female genital mutilation, massacre or enslavement of enemies taken in war, and other practices which was once held to be the duty of the civilized to extirpate."31
Furthermore, what Eskridge takes for homosexual marriage are actually male bonding rituals that he mistakenly eroticized. Alleged examples from ancient Rome, such as Nero and Elagabalus, only reveal the degree to which homosexuality was held in contempt by Roman society. In referring to Nero's homosexuality, Tacitus wrote that the emperor "polluted himself by every lawful or lawless indulgence, [and] had not omitted a single abomination which could heighten his depravity." This hardly constitutes an endorsement of homosexuality in ancient Rome.
Lubin and Duncan summarize: "There is no 'rich history of same-sex marriage' that [Eskridge] has 'uncovered,' that was 'suppressed in recent Western history, and is only now coming to light.' The 'resistance' to same-sex marriage is not limited to 'Western culture' with its age-old 'anti-homosexual hysteria and bigotry,' but extends to almost every culture throughout the world."32
On the face of it, theories about the supposed widespread practice of homosexual marriage throughout history lack merit, given the biological imperative of families consisting of husbands and wives producing children, which is a basic requirement for the preservation of any culture or society.

How Does Gay Marriage Harm Your Marriage?
One might as well ask, "How does my printing counterfeit $20 bills hurt your wallet?" Or to use another example, can you imagine a building where every carpenter defined his own standard of measurement? A man and a woman joined together in holy matrimony is the time-tested "yardstick" for marriage. One cannot alter the definition of marriage without throwing society into confusion any more than one can change the definition of a yardstick.
Homosexual marriage is an empty pretense that lacks the fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female. And like all counterfeits, it cheapens and degrades the real thing. The destructive effects may not be immediately apparent, but the cumulative damage is inescapable. The eminent Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, analyzed cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents, and found that virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as defined as the union of a man and a woman, and survived.33

A Federal Marriage Amendment: Protection Against Judicial Tyranny
Given the strong public opposition to homosexual behavior, it is hardly surprising that no state has voted to extend full marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples. Having failed to achieve their agenda through the democratic process, homosexual activists are now focusing on advancing their agenda through the courts as well as through "civil disobedience" such as the illegal issuance of marriage licenses by public officials in San Francisco and elsewhere.
There is growing danger of activist judges disregarding marriage laws passed by a majority of the population and enshrined in centuries of legal precedence, and imposing homosexual marriage on the nation. States' "Defense of Marriage" laws will help to protect against counterfeit marriage. But such statutes can be overturned in state courts on the argument that they violate state constitutional equal protection and due process clauses.
Amending state constitutions to bar gay marriage will also offer some protection. However, observers fear that the U.S. Supreme Court could overturn state constitutional amendments on the basis of the equal protection and due process clauses in the U.S. Constitution. Robert Bork writes: "One of the last obstacles to the complete normalization of homosexuality in our society is the understanding that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. ... Many court watchers believe that within five to ten years the U.S. Supreme Court will hold that there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage, just as that court invented a right to abortion. The chosen instrument will be the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment."34
A constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman offers the ultimate protection against the agenda of gay and lesbian activists such as Paula Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, who unabashedly states: "Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and ... transforming the very fabric of society."35
We enjoy the blessing of living in a nation that has enshrined democratic principles--but this privilege also entails the obligation to make our voices heard in the political process. Those who value the family have a God-given duty to become involved in what is shaping up as the preeminent moral issue of our day: protecting the very institution of marriage.
Our elected representatives must be put on notice that they face an historic choice between catering to the demands of a well-heeled, powerful cadre of homosexual activist organizations determined to radically alter the definition and nature of marriage, or listening to the voice of people across the nation who seek to preserve marriage as the wellspring of society and culture for themselves and their families for generations to come.

SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS by Georgiana Preskar

2005-07-30T14:35:00.000-07:00

In Seeds of Deception: Planting Destruction of America's Children, I talk about the days of "old" when the focal point of nightly entertainment was listening to the radio. Of course this followed "playing" outside with our friends. This play consisted of pretend scenarios that ventured anywhere from the girls "dressing-up" like our moms or boys and girls donning the roles of cops and robbers.

We never looked upon firearms suspiciously. Guns were our friends and we had a healthy respect for them. When my friends could not play, I took my pretend horse and rode in our backyard. Of course I needed protection and would never leave the house without my holster and guns hanging from my waist. My guns were there to protect my world from serious harm. I knew that it was only pretend, but pretend had a way of teaching us many valuable life lessons.

Children and teens of today are told that guns are bad. The only stories they hear are the awful ones about terrorists, robbers, and murderers killing innocent people. Adults and children involved in gun accidents are giving guns the "bad" name. Death is usually the end result and the media feeds on this information delivering it for the sole purpose of destroying our rights to own and use guns. Rather than focusing on the "actions" as bad, they focus on the "gun."

The Second Amendment is about preserving the Inalienable Right of Individual Self-Protection. Hitler was aware that in order to take over a nation, he had to have its guns. It worked and people surrendered the only thing that could have possibly saved them, the right to protect themselves. Across America, in every state, we have people in power positions trying to rid us of our Second Amendment Rights. They do this by using fear tactics, exaggerated statistics, and legislation. We must counteract this with positive literature about gun ownership, truthful statistics, and legislation that will allow us our freedom to protect ourselves.

Underhanded officials will support ways that are deceitful, even to the point of educating future generations to believe that guns are bad. In fact some adults have bought the "lie" and fear guns, which undermines our ability as individuals and a people to defend America. The National Rifle Association states "Today's political climate demands that all gun owners and Second Amendment supporters get involved in the fight to protect and preserve the Second Amendment. No matter what your background or experience level, every supporter of our freedom has a role to play."

They suggest the following six steps:

1. REGISTER TO VOTE! The easiest way to protect our Right to Keep and Bear Arms is by exercising another one of our rights -- the right to vote. Voting is your voice in the political process -- use it or lose it! Since only currently registered voters are eligible to vote in an election, you must take this important first step and register to vote. For voter registration information and applications please contact Eagle Forum of Sacramento at www.eagleforumofsacramento.com

2. MONITOR YOUR LOCAL MEDIA. Gun owners face a severely biased media. One of the most effective ways to put the facts about firearm ownership before the public is to respond to anti-gun articles, editorials, and reports. Letters to the editor to your local newspaper or corresponding with a local television station carry weight and get results. Keep on top of gun-related stories and respond accordingly! For information to assist you in contacting the media, please visit our "Write The Media" section at our NRA website

3. PARTICIPATE IN CALL-IN RADIO & TELEVISION PROGRAMS." Gun control" is always a hot topic on the talk-show circuit. Many of these programs allow the public to call in and express their views. Take advantage of these opportunities to make your voice heard. The "Write The Media" feature can also help you with this endeavor.

4. JOIN NRA-ILA's FRONTLINES(tm) VOLUNTEER PROGRAM. Those who join NRA-ILA FrontLines will act as the tip of NRA-ILA's arrow in defense of our freedom. After enrolling in this free program, you will be contacted by NRA-ILA and/or your local NRA-ILA Election Volunteer Coordinator (EVC) to discuss your role in defending our liberty. Visit the NRA website for further information.

5. MOBILIZE YOUR CLUB. If you are a member of a gun or hunting club, discuss at meetings what needs to be done to ensure your rights. It can be as simple as having your club members contact their representatives or inviting lawmakers to address a meeting of your club. Also, designate Legislative Chairman to serve as ILA's point-of-contact to share legislative and political information.

6. SPREAD THE WORD! Make sure the pro-Second Amendment community in your area is aware of firearm-related activities, and encourage them to get involved! Educate yourself in legislation and spread the word to family and friends.

EAGLE FORUM OF SACRAMENTO believes that a grave injustice has been done to our society. It is being educated with a bad image of guns. Educate your children to know that guns have a proper place in society. Encourage schools to adopt education policies that teach about guns through safety classes. Most importantly speak out in favor of guns and stand behind our Second Amendment Rights!

High Stakes in Judicial Supremacy

2005-07-27T06:01:00.000-07:00

Phyllis Schlafly
July 25, 2005

The histrionics of the liberals about the impending nomination to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court look overwrought, but they are heartfelt. Liberals know they've lost the legislative and executive branches of government, and their only hope of achieving their goals is from supremacist judges who claim the authority to legislate the law of the land.Liberals know that neither Congress nor state legislatures would ever ban the Pledge of Allegiance or the Ten Commandments, or order same-sex marriage licenses, or kick the Boy Scouts off of public schools and military properties. Liberal politicians, secularist litigators and the gay lobby know very well that only supremacist judges do those eminently unpopular things.That's why House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., described Supreme Court decisions as "almost as if God has spoken." Pelosi's elevation of judges to the level of God shows how desperate liberals are to bamboozle the public into accepting continued liberal domination of the courts.Democrats admonish us that we must have an independent judiciary. But what they mean is independent of the U.S. Constitution, and we certainly should not give judges that kind of independence.In the latest incident of judicial mischief, a federal judge ruled that the Pentagon can no longer spend money to prepare a Virginia military base for use by a national quadrennial Boy Scout jamboree that attracts 40,000 Scouts and leaders, plus 300,000 parents and spectators. Although the jamboree is a 25-year-old institution, the American Civil Liberties Union persuaded an activist judge to ban it in the future because the Boy Scouts pledge to do their duty to God and country.Earlier this year, another federal judge issued a ruling that, unfortunately, has received little national coverage. He presumed to knock out Nebraska's state constitutional marriage amendment that was passed by 70 percent of voters. Congress and state legislatures are, for the most part, wisely unwilling to raise taxes. So what are tax-and-spend liberals to do? Run to supremacist judges, of course.Lawsuits are pending in 24 states asking judges to order state legislatures to pour more money into public schools which, obviously, will require tax increases. If any issues should be solely legislative prerogatives, they are raising taxes and spending taxpayer money.Nevertheless, so far spenders and supremacists have won all their cases except, mirabile dictu, in Massachusetts. That state's high court judges might be a bit shy because of the public scorn they suffered after ordering same-sex marriage licenses.Ground zero in this battle turns out to be Kansas, where the state supreme court has ordered the legislature to put $143 million more into public schools, even though Kansas already spends nearly $10,000 per pupil, pays teachers more than most Kansas workers, and graduates students who score well in national tests. Judges seized on a single word in the state constitution and ruled that the definition of "suitable" means a specific amount of money knowable only through the presumed wisdom of judges.After the Kansas Supreme Court's threat to close all the schools plus heavy pressure from the Democratic governor, Democratic legislators combined with the RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) to say, yes, sirree, to the legislating judges. The court retained jurisdiction of the case and is expected to order the legislature to increase funding again next year, probably by another $568 million.The Kansas experience shows that it's not just federal judges, but state judges, too, who need replacing and should have their power limited. Legislators should withdraw jurisdiction from judges so they cannot legislate or act as an imperial judiciary, and legislators who fail to do their duty should be replaced as well as the judges.All of a sudden, Sandra Day O'Connor has become the favorite justice of Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and the Democrats, and they are demanding that her replacement be her clone. No wonder they like her: she voted repeatedly for abortion, repeatedly for the homosexual lobby, and repeatedly against the Ten Commandments.We can't afford to have another O'Connor mistake. We are counting on President Bush to keep his promise to give us justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.In the second presidential debate in 2004, George W. Bush said: "I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words 'under God' in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution."A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll released July 14 reported that 63 percent of Americans believe it is a step in the right direction for Bush to appoint a judge "who favors continuing to allow references to God in our public life such as allowing displays of the Ten Commandments on government property."Only 14 percent said that would be a step in the wrong direction.

Kids (and Teachers) Given Workshops on Homosexuality, Radicalism, How to Organize & Infiltrate Schools

2005-07-26T06:32:00.000-07:00

Your tax dollars at work -- with additional funding from businesses & others ...

The "Little Black Book" was by no means the only horror story at Brookline High School, Brookline, MA on April 30 -- where hundreds of kids, from middle school through high school, attended the homosexual conference organized by the "Gay and Lesbian and Straight Education Network" (GLSEN). When the MA Legislature overrode the governor's veto, this is what they're paying for...
Below are samples of the actual workshops listed in the program for that day -- scanned from the conference program -- which children (and teachers) attended. The homosexual movement tells you that their interest with kids is only about "tolerance." As you can see, that's a complete lie. It's about propaganda, recruitment, strategies for normalizing homosexuality and transsexuality in the minds of the youngest of children, hatred of traditional religious values, and extremely radical ideas.
Funding: Where did extra funding for this conference come from (besides your tax dollars)? You'll be outraged! Click here to see.
Yes, you're reading this correctly. This is about people who have operations to have their bodies mutilated to "become" a person of the opposite sex. The latest thing in the homosexual movement is to normalize this in the minds of young people. Notice that it's run by a Planned Parenthood employee.
This was a truly bizarre workshop -- we had someone who was there discuss it with us (more about this in upcoming postings). There were actual "transgender youth" telling kids about this lifestyle. Note the moderator, Grace Sterling Stowell. Grace, leader of a homosexual "youth" group that gets government support, started out life as a man.
How do you think that the "Day of Silence" and other such events just "happen" to get into schools? Or how kids just "happen" to get involved with the homosexual marriage movement? You're helping pay for it.
Lexington High School seems to be well represented here. Here's a student leader working with GLSEN to organize "queer activists" and "straight allies."
Extremely offensive!! This is the latest homosexual propaganda effort against traditional religion. Kids are told that religious sanctions against homosexual behavior constitute "spiritual violence." And that the "rightful place on a spiritual path" is to embrace homosexuality as normal and healthy.
Do you wonder how teachers find ways to work in homosexual themes to the youngest of children? This is unbelievable -- introducing "gay/lesbian/bi issues" and introducing "age-appropriate language" to vulnerable children.
More of the infamous Lexington High School and GLSEN. Eva Rosenberg, a Lexington High student, has been quite vocal in the press as a concerned student (not a GLSEN organizer) and uses harsh language to describe local parents who don't agree with the homosexual agenda, and participated in helping intimidate a protester on Lexington's "Day of Silence". It looks like she's spreading the knowledge.
More radical "queer politics." Notice that it's a "youth-only" session.
GLSEN's in the schools big time, now training teachers with effective "anti-homophobia" and "anti-transphobia" sessions, and who knows what else. As we say, homosexual programs don't just "happen." They're very well planned.
This is another big push by the homosexual movement -- incorporating "gay" issues into academic classes. How you can change the culture of your school. Again, this doesn't just "happen" -- it's well planned.

Want more training to be an agent of change in your school? Visit www.stopSEED.com.

GENDER-NEUTRALIZE THEN SANITIZE THE WORKPLACE

2005-07-25T20:32:00.000-07:00

The feminists have struck again serving to gender-neutralize our society ...

Since when were the words "he", "she", "him", "her", "men", "women", "male", or "female" considered "sexist" terms?

And, so state government follows the dangerous path the feminists have strategically paved to change our thought patterns and to gender-neutralize the workplace.

I work for a large public safety department. One of my duties is to review, and on occasion write departmental policy. A policy review recently crossed my desk updating the department's Departmental Publications Management Manual. Reviewing manuals has never been one of my favorite things to do, but as part of management, we are required to know where to find standard operating procedures, etc. contained in the multitude of manuals for every issue you could possible thing of.

As I started reading Chapter 1, clarifying the dissemination of policy, language, delegation of authority and maintaining on-line publications, I came to subsection (j) - Elimination of Sexist Terminology. I had to do a double-take ... were my eyes deceiving me? The instructions in subsection (j) states: "Elimination of Sexist Terminology. Masculine or feminine terms shall not be used when referring to groups or situations which include or may include members of both genders." What is so offensive about he, she, him, or her? So now we're them or they ... or the group, or a committee. What's next? This policitical correctness stuff is getting ridiculous!

The following article by Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly couldn't have been more timely. The radical feminists are out to eliminate any reference to males. By doing so, they believe they are minimizing the importance and significance of men. I disagree ...

TIME TO DISPOSE OF RADICAL FEMINIST PORK

2005-07-25T20:05:00.000-07:00

Phyllis Schlafly
July 18, 2005

If Republicans are looking for a way to return to their principles of limited government and reduced federal spending, a good place to start would be rejection of the coming reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act sponsored by Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del. It's a mystery why Republicans continue to put a billion dollars a year of taxpayers' money into the hands of radical feminists who use it to preach their anti-marriage and anti-male ideology, promote divorce, corrupt the family court system, and engage in liberal political advocacy.

Accountability is supposed to be the watchword of the Bush administration, but there's been no accountability or oversight for the act's spending of many billions of dollars. There is no evidence that the Violence Against Women Act has benefited anyone except the radical feminists on its payroll.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, which is gearing up for a battle royal over the Supreme Court vacancy, has scheduled a hearing on the act for mid-July. It's apparently designed as a be-nice-to-Biden-before-the court-fight event, since no critic has been invited to speak.

Let's have a reality check. The Violence Against Women Act's gender-specific title is pejorative: it's based on the false, unscientific, unjust and blatantly offensive premise that men are innately violent and abusive toward women, making all women victims of men.

The president of Harvard University was publicly pilloried for months earlier this year for implying innate differences between men and women. But the act is spending a billion dollars a year to inculcate that very notion in the minds of men and women who are having marital difficulties, as well as police, prosecutors, psychologists and family court judges.

Feminists staged tantrums at the suggestion of innate math-aptitude differences between men and women, but the whole premise of the Violence Against Women Act is that men have an innate propensity to violence against women. It's not because some are bad individuals or drunks or psychologically troubled, but because men want to keep women subservient in an oppressive patriarchal society.

The Violence Against Women Act was passed using such bogus statistics as "a woman is beaten every 15 seconds" and "80 percent of fathers who seek custody of their children fit the profile of a batterer." Remember the Super Bowl hoax, the ridiculous claim that "the biggest day of the year for violence against women" is Super Bowl Sunday? It's an assertion conclusively refuted by Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers' research.

The Violence Against Women Act comes out of Andrea Dworkin's tirades of hate such as, "Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." The act comes out of Gloria Steinem's nonsense, such as "the patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself."

Here is some mischief in act-funded activities that should be investigated in the coming Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

The act refuses to provide any help whatsoever for male victims of domestic violence. Let's hear from professor Martin Fiebert of California State University at Long Beach who compiled a bibliography of 170 scholarly investigations, 134 empirical studies and 36 analyses, which demonstrate that women are almost as physically abusive toward their partners as men.

The act encourages women to make false allegations, and then petition for full child custody and a denial of all fathers' rights to see their own children.

The act promotes the unrestrained use of restraining orders, which family courts issue on the woman's say-so. This powerful weapon (according to the Illinois Bar Journal) is "part of the gamesmanship of divorce" and virtually guarantees that fathers are expelled from the lives of their own children.

A woman seeking help from an act-funded center is not offered any options except to leave her husband, divorce him, accuse him of being a criminal and have her sons targeted as suspects in future crimes. The Violence Against Women Act ideology rejects joint counseling, reconciliation and saving marriages.

The act denies that alcohol and illegal drugs are a cause of domestic violence, a peculiar assumption contrary to all human experience. In fact, most domestic violence incidents involve those components.

The act uses a definition of domestic violence that blurs the difference between violent action and run-of-the-mill marital tiffs and arguments. Definitions of abuse can even include minor insults and refusing to help with child care or housework.

The act funds the re-education of judges and all law enforcement personnel to teach them feminist stereotypes about male abusers and female victims, how to game the system to empower women, and how to ride roughshod over the constitutional rights of men.

The act forces Soviet-style psychological re-education on men. The accused men are not given treatment for real problems, but are assigned to classes where feminists teach shame and guilt because of a vast male conspiracy to subjugate women.

The Violence Against Women Act-funded centers engage in political advocacy for feminist legislation such as the "must-arrest" laws even if there is no sign of violence and even if the woman doesn't want the man arrested, and political advocacy against non-feminist legislation such as shared parental rights.

It's time to stop the act from spending any more taxpayers' money to promote family dissolution and fatherless children.

July 18, 2005

CONGRESS SHOULD EXPLORE CAFTA'S AFFECT ON IMMIGRATION

2005-07-24T09:38:00.000-07:00

The Leadership of the House of Representatives will decide shortly whether to bring the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) up for a vote or not. They will not bring the bill to the floor unless they believe they have the votes to pass it.

A detailed analysis is available at the www.stopCAFTA.com website which explains the potential impact of CAFTA on legal immigration levels.

It's anticipated that, like NAFTA, CAFTA will generate an increase in illegal immigration, unless Congress finally decides to secure our borders and eliminate the jobs magnet by mandating employment authorization verification of all employees. There are so many unanswered questions about the impact that CAFTA is likely to have on immigration, and it's important for you to ask your Representatives to demand answers to these questions now, before it is too late to stop CAFTA.

Only Congress has the authority to approve or reject free trade agreements; it may not amend them because of the President's fast track authority. Once Congress gives its approval, it may not pass laws that restrict or alter the provisions of the trade agreement, or the United States will be subject to trade sanctions.

I'm not against free trade ... but at what cost, America? Will we stand by and allow foreign tribunals to dictate U.S. policy?

HOMELAND INSECURITY

2005-07-24T09:03:00.000-07:00

Tunnel revealed at U.S.-Canada border
Smugglers arrested after feds monitor construction

Tunnel beneath U.S.-Canada border regarded as threat to national security (KOMO-TV, Seattle) After monitoring its construction for several months, federal agents arrested three Canadians in connection with an elaborate smuggling tunnel at the U.S.-Canada border in Washington state.

Border Patrol officials, who provided video of the tunnel, said it was the first discovered on the northern border. Thirty-three tunnels have been found along the U.S.-Mexican border in California and Arizona.
Police said the tunnel, about 360 feet long, was used for smuggling marijuana, but it also was a threat to national security.

Officials said they were certain, however, that no weapons went through. The tunnel ran from an abandoned greenhouse in British Columbia to an abandoned house near Lynden, Wash.

Border Patrol spokesman Joe Guliano told KOMO-TV in Seattle that officials allowed the smugglers to finish the costly structure to find out who was behind it.

"To fill the thing with cement when it's half done doesn't answer those questions," Guliano said The tunnel was reinforced with concrete and lumber. "It had ventilation, it had electricity, and again, one of the most sophisticated tunnels seen by law enforcement," said Rod Benson, special agent in charge with the DEA.

Arrested were 30-year-old Francis Devandra Raj , 34-year-old Timothy Woo and 27-year-old Johnathan Valenzuela. All are from Surrey, British Columbia.

They were charged today in a U.S. District Court in Seattle with conspiracy to import and distribute marijuana.

BATBOY DRAMA IN SAN DIEGO

2005-07-23T08:10:00.000-07:00

The homosexual agenda in California has taken over in our government-run educational system and in positions of authority. The following letter is from a caring parent (in San Diego) who tried to stop the production of a play called “Bat Boy” at a school where her children attend. The following is the letter sent to a friend to share in a Bible study as an example of show how hate-filled these people can become, and have become. This thought pattern is not uncommon amongst people who fight for the cause of homosexuality being normal, as well as the philosophy of secular humanism. Our government-run school system is all too-eager to enforce the "separation of church and state" clause to keep morality out of schools. Yet secular humanism is a "religion" and allowed on all campuses. Please visit http://www.stopseed.com/ for more eye-opening information on a program that could be coming to your school district soon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ So Karen, (and Debbie)It's always a treat to see frightening individuals such as yourself who make it their life focus to try and impose your rigid fundamentalist views on others, get squashed when the very thing you are trying to repress explodes with such success and triumph as Bat Boy has done. Do you have a life or has your life become about trying to take away what so many have worked so hard to try and create? We, the revolutionaries of artistic expression are thrilled that your pathetic "fight" has been quelled and that this wonderful production of "Bat Boy" is enjoying a terrific run at *LCHS. I would however encourage you and your minions to send in some of your own dramatic clips to the Emmys as I think your performances are well worth an award. This victory is made all the sweeter by seeing the faces of so many community kids show up night after night at the performances and be whisked away into the world of Edgar, the Batboy and his story of tolerance and acceptance, two words that you couldn't even spell much less practice based your performance these past few months. You say your argument is based on the venue of this production...have you seen this production at its current venue? If you had, you probably would have tried to excuse your presence not as informing yourself of the REAL story but as trying to confirm what you believed to be the case all along...a hollow reason to soapbox and get attention. Is it that you don't get enough attention in your mundane existence, you have to try and RUIN something that so many have worked so hard on? You make us all SICK to our bat bellies. It's people like you who are responsible for hate, censorship, events like Matthew Shepard's death, discrimination...hate and bigotry only serves to breed the like. I wonder how you would react if you knew the truths behind the lives you come into contact with every day...how many of your "friends" are liars,racists, bigots, gay or worst of all - atheist. If your kids aren't interested in taking part in something so wonderful then that's their decision to make...are you going to be there with them in college, watching over what they do everyday, wiping their behinds for them, sticking up for them, appearing on radio shows and in newspapers when they are taking part in something that you feel is inappropriate for the venue...? GET A LIFE, COMMUNICATE WITH YOUR KIDS! I only hope they're telling you the truth about where they go at night and for GOD'S SAKE, WHATEVER YOU DO-KEEP THEM AWAY FROM SHAKESPEARE!!!! FYI, there's more death, rape, murder and violence in the literature that your children read in class and the films you allow (or don't even know about) them to watch than would ever be present at an LCHS performance. Are you that ignorant to truly believe that Gale Caswell would throw away twenty+ years of teaching and directing just to satisfy some personal agenda? You are the epitome of what is wrong with that community. We would list our names on this email if there were enough room but it's a little cramped in here with all of the Christian fundamentalists, religious right-ers and Dobsonites...OPEN YOUR EYES AND SHUT THAT BIG MOUTH AND CRAWL BACK INTO YOUR SAD CAVE! WE'RE ALL SO SICK AND TIRED OF YOU FOCUSING ON BATBOY-GO FOCUS ON YOUR OWN FAMILY AND LEAVE THE DRAMA TO THE DRAMA STUDENTS! Until we fly again- The BatBoy Revolution
_____________________________________________________________________ *NOTE: LCHS is the High School where the mother’s kids go in San Diego suburb.A note from the mother: Can you believe those cowards didn't have the courage to sign their names? Why, because then there would be a name and a face to hold responsible for their venom. It was too well written to have come from a performer of our high school production...and quite frankly than from any of the drama parents either. Thanks for the kind words. I am blessed and highly favored, I know.

ARE WE A JUDEO-CHRISTIAN NATION OR MUSLIM NATION? WAKE UP AMERICA!

2005-07-13T06:44:00.000-07:00

ACLU Urges North Carolina Courts to Allow Use of Multiple Religious Texts for Swearing Oaths

RALEIGH, NC -- The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina today accused the Administrative Office of Courts of dragging its feet on an important issue of religious freedom and called upon the rule-making body to adopt a policy allowing the use of the Qur’an and other religious texts for the swearing of oaths in court proceedings.

Muslim and Interfaith Groups Join in Urging Officials to Protect Religious Freedom and Reject "Bible Only" Policy

RALEIGH, NC -- The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina today accused the Administrative Office of Courts of dragging its feet on an important issue of religious freedom and called upon the rule-making body to adopt a policy allowing the use of the Qur’an and other religious texts for the swearing of oaths in court proceedings.

"The government cannot favor one set of religious values over another and must allow all individuals of faith to be sworn in on the holy text that is in accordance with their faith," said Jennifer Rudinger, Executive Director of the ACLU of North Carolina. "As our state supreme court said nearly 150 years ago, to do otherwise would ‘throw the country back upon the illiberal and intolerant rule which was supposed to be the law in the time of bigotry.’"

Muslim groups, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and interfaith religious organizations have also called upon officials to respect religious diversity by allowing the use of multiple religious texts in this and related contexts.

The issue first arose when a Guilford County Muslim woman was denied the right to be sworn in on the Qur’an when she was a witness in a court proceeding. The Al Ummil Ummat Islamic Center has offered to donate copies of the Qur’an to the county court system specifically for this purpose. The responsibility now falls on the court agency to issue a rule clarifying this issue for all state court proceedings in North Carolina, said the ACLU of North Carolina.

In a letter sent to the Administrative Office of the Courts on June 28, the ACLU pointed out that not only does legislative history indicate that the phrase "Holy Scriptures" was intended to encompass more than just the Bible, but longstanding North Carolina Supreme Court precedent also recognizes the validity of faiths other than Christianity and allows for the administration of oaths to be adaptable to diverse religious beliefs. Court precedents also allows for individuals to either take an oath with an "uplifted hand" or to simply an take a secular oath such that the word "affirm" replaces the word "swear" and the words "so help me God" are deleted.

To date, the court agency has not yet responded to the ACLU’s letter.
The letter is available online at:
www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=18663&c=29.

WORDS OF WISDOM FROM PAST PRESIDENTS

2005-07-06T06:40:00.000-07:00

The following link has wonderful quotes from our past Presidents who feared what would happen to this great Nation if God was removed from our every day life. Too bad we [and the courts and our elected officials] failed to take heed of those prophetic words.

May God continue to Bless America.

http://www.interviewwithgod.com/patriotic/highband.htm

A CALL TO ACTION

2005-06-20T23:48:00.000-07:00

GRASSROOTS CONSERVATIVISM

What ever happened to government for the people by the people? Or, government in which the people hold the ruling power either directly or through elected representatives? One has to ask when we see what is happening in our State and Nation’s Capitols. We have a party [Democrat] that is governed by and beholden to the major public employee labor unions. Like marionettes, members of our California State Legislature jump at the bark of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and the AFL/CIO, who hold the purse strings to the bankroll of money that is funneled to the politicians through forced-member union dues. Most public employees, if given the chance, would rather not pay union dues; especially if they knew how and where their union dues were going. I have been forced to pay union dues for the past 25 years and apart from the occasional collective bargaining, the union has been successful in giving themselves more raises and has done nothing for me. Now I’m not looking for sympathy because I have been blessed with the job that I have, and I enjoy providing a service which benefits the People of the State of California. But I object to being forced to pay union dues that support legislation such as AB19 - the Gender Neutral Marriage [homosexual marriage] or AB651 – The Compassionate Choices Act [physician-assisted suicide].

I am thankful that the grassroots conservatives who value traditional family values and the sanctity of life stepped up to the plate to take action and called their elected officials to defeat AB19 ... at least for this year. There are those, even within the Republican Party, who want to transform the grassroots activists by attacking our core values. The liberal mainstream media has even gone as far as attempting to strike fear in the minds of Americans by reporting that the United States is becoming a “theocracy.” First, let’s define theocracy: the-oc-racy, n. 1. lit., the rule of state by God or a god; 2. government by a person or persons claim to rule with divine authority; 3. a country governed in this way. Our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution of the United States with the specific intent that we are a people who derive our laws by a higher authority, the author and giver of life … God. But the United States is far from becoming a theocracy. Yet, there are those who deny God and by their own authority want to become a god. That’s what we are seeing in our State and Nation’s Legislatures.

In November, 2005, Californians will have an opportunity to make a positive change in California government. There are several initiatives the people will vote on, such as redistricting which will remove the gerrymandered districts from the hands of the politicians; waiting period parental notification to bar abortion on unemancipated minors; employee consent for political contributions (labor unions); and the voter identification requirement which requires that voters present one of four types of picture identification before voting. In 2006 we will have the opportunity to further protect the people's vote on Proposition 22 by guaranteeing that marriage remains defined as one man and one woman. But the battle is far from over. More than ever grassroots conservatives must continue to participate in public policymaking. More than ever grassroots conservatives must continue to make their voices heard when it comes to electing local, state and national representatives. It is our job to hold them accountable to the people who elect into office when it comes to social security reform, no new taxes, immigration, social security [for our children's sake] and education. Particularly when we see our elected officials compromise on issues important to majority of Americans ... for our future, the future of our children and our Nation.

PLOTTING TERRORISM IN OUR OWN BACKYARD

2005-06-09T10:45:00.000-07:00

Terrorism sleeper cells, right here in our own backyard! This is frightening! However, we can thank our Democrat-led Legislature, who last year passed SB 1234 (Kuehl) - Hate Crime. While this bill is supposed to offer protections to the various "protected groups" including homosexuals, it also offers protections to Arab/Middle Eastern and Islamic groups. Read a partial text of the bill below. In 2006 our LAW ENFORCEMENT SHALL participate in courses to deal with hate crimes, and:... "by July 1, 2007, require the course to have instruction in multimission criminal extremism, the special problems inherent in some categories of hate crimes, preparation for, and response to, possible future anti-Arab/Middle Eastern and anti-Islamic hate crimewaves, and any other future hate crimewaves that the Attorney General determines are likely. This bill would require that the commission include in the guidelines a framework and possible content of general order or otherformal policy on hate crimes that all state law enforcement agencies shall adopt and local law enforcement agencies would be encouraged to adopt, as specified."As long as we have people in the Legislature offering protections to these groups, who are now considered "victims" by virtue of SB 1234, how can our law enforcement effectively do their job? I wish our Governor would repeal this bill, especially in light of the recent events ... again, in our own backyard!It makes me sick to think that every time the ice cream trucks come prowling our streets with their tinkling bells chiming "Mary Had A Little Lamb" like the Pied Piper calling out our little lambs [to slaughter] to spend our American dollars to buy their products, we unsuspectingly aresupporting terrorists sleeper cells! Oh, wait, is that hate speech? I thank God for the Patriot Act, and to the FBI for effectively and swiftly doing their job.You won't hear the Islamic community speak out against it because they're trained to lie to the infidels. The next time you hear the tingling bells of the ice cream truck coming down your street, I pray you will think twice about giving your money to support them!